User:Bicycle Wheel/RationalWikiWiki Treehouse archive 11

Input wanted

So here's the deal: I've been saying for a while that this place needs a formal system on conflict resolution. In the next week or so, I will implement one. But what I would like is input from the users here on how we should go about conflict resolution. DO we want another "live and die by democracy" like the chicken coop? DO we want something more formal? Less formal? Do we want someone to be the ultimate judge on all cases? Please leave your feedback. Punky McPunkerson 13:54, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

The problem with "Ultimate judge" is that only you have moral authority. Hans has too much baggage (though that has lessened in recent months), Ty's become noticebly less stable in the past few weeks. Unfortuently, shit happens when you're not around. I'd argue that LX would be a good "judge", but RWW isn't his primary hobby. Conficker appears to be gone, and the only other editor left from the "Glory Days" of 2011, LP, is again far too controversial and is here much less.

Problem with the coop is that the RW Coop barely functions at all. A moderator system on a site this small? See Cz. Or hell see RW.

So which of these is the lesser of the evils? Mbwun 17:20, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Too much baggage? Why, I'll have you know I've shed my baggage like a snake whose airline lost its luggage. Hans Johnson as in "keep ya hans off my" ^{(cover your eyes!)} 00:52, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

(EC) I favor a Parliament composed of three committees of three users each, a Rules Committee, a Rights Committee, and an Electoral Committee. The Rules Committee will propose and implement all standards of conduct and the punishments for breaking them. The Rights Committee will determine the criteria for promotions and demotions to sysop and bureaucrat, and implement them. The sole purpose of the Electoral Committee will be to elect by single transferable vote the President of the RWW Parliament, who will have the power to arbitrate disputes and interpret all rules and criteria written by the Rules and Rights Committees. The Parliament will be elected by four voter precincts: the first will elect four MPs and will be composed of all current bureaucrats; the second will elect two MPs and will be composed of all current non-bureaucrat sysops; the third will elect two MPs and will be composed of all users with at least 10,000 mainspace edits on RW proper; and the fourth will elect one MP and will be composed of all registered RWW editors. It is expected that Gabe will be elected President-for-Life, though an elaborate coup may orchestrate his temporary demise. Liveware Problem 17:27, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Snicker. Though actually I could see that work. I once read some paper on the electoral system of Venice in the Renaissance, which while complicated was interesting. Mbwun 17:34, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Some brief suggestions:

1. Settle things onsite, not over the phone.
2. Give enough people admin abilities so that one of them can step in if another one goes loco. Removing people's rights because they don't edit enough or there's "too many crats" is stupid. If somebody is a known & mostly trusted RW/RWW editor, there's no reason for them not to have blocking/locking/promotion/demotion abilities.
3. The block policy guidelines aren't very good. Day-long blocks shouldn't be needed unless a user is being seriously disruptive.
4. Try to talk out conflicts rather than reaching for the banhammer. Cool-off blocks or temporary demotion might sometimes be necessary in cases of wheel war, but usually some sort of compromise can be reached or somebody will admit they were wrong.
5. In cases of sustained conflict or admin abuse, something like the Chicken Coop can be held to determine whether a user loses admin rights or gets a longer block. This should be a last resort, not for every little hiccup as has become the way over at RW. I doubt it would come up very often here.

Weaselicious ^{Bite Me} 18:55, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I want to know who is doing the phone calls. Ace McWicked 20:56, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

My guess is it's this guy. Flep Hendersen 22:09, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Make's sense. What, no it didn't. Ace McWicked 22:14, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

The phone call was from me to Ty when I was in a state of complete drunken stupor and ranting about shit I regret. I never actually intended to have an off-site conversation spill over onto the site itself. Especially given my drunkeness at the time. Punky McPunkerson 12:02, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Iron fist or nothing. Armondikov 14:38, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm late here, but I think Weasel's ideas are a great starting point. Which reminds me: where the fuck are my 'crat rights?!?!?!? Conficker 12:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

My suggestion remains: shut this piece of shit down. The very idea of it is still creepy. Nutty Roux 13:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Ain't gonna happen anytime soon. At least not before I break the Wiki trying to fix something and then give up. Punky McPunkerson 12:40, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

hmmm. Good question. Things have been ok so far, as Ty seems to be around a lot... but if he wasn't keeping an eye on things here it could be a problem, so maybe there should be some formal structure of some sort. Just not sure what. Maybe a few 'crats or whatever would be good. By the way, I used to be in categories "Police, janitors, rollback" etc. but not anymore. ? Refugee 19:37, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

wait, waiteewaitwait... I rescind the above remark about user rights. I just read the description of the user groups, so now I understand what the categories are/do. It would have been better for me to read the info before posting. Next time I will. (maybe) I can't promise anything. Refugee 00:07, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikiproject

Since most of what goes on here these days is useless bitching, I propose a wikiproject. 50 new articles and trying to get some new front page articles. A lot of the place is out of date as well, might want to fix that. Say get this done by the end of July? Guybrush Threepwood 21:58, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Good plan. Off you go, skippy. Ace McWicked 22:28, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Good to see Ace's involvement is the same as always on both sites. Guybrush Threepwood 22:29, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Ace McWicked 22:39, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Depends on how you define involvement. If you define involvement in the CP-watching side of RW Ty, Godot, and RNS are all useless, Ty and RNS being borderline trolls, while DickTurpis, LArron and Psygremlin are pillars. Those three are also effectively useless to the mainspace section of the site. On the social side of things we have Ace being extremely important and involved. AFAIK RwW has no policy on what defines usefulness on RW. Though I will admit that he doesn't do much here. Mbwun 23:12, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Fair point. Guybrush Threepwood 23:18, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Exactly what your improvement drive will result in. Fuck all. This site is a cancer hanging from RW's nut. Ace McWicked 22:48, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

The leave. Guybrush Threepwood 22:49, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I assume you meant "then leave". No. Ace McWicked 22:52, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

You are correct. Then why stay? Guybrush Threepwood 22:52, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

It's a secret. Ace McWicked 23:01, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Bullshit. Guybrush Threepwood 23:04, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

You get two more guesses. Ace McWicked 23:04, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

You feel validated and superior by injecting an aloof "I don't care" attitude into everything and receive positive reinforcement from everyone else in return for it? Armondikov 14:41, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

If you are referring to me Armondikov then yes, I am deeply flawed individual who's sole method of feeling good about himself is the pretend to be a narcissistic drunk on a website populated by geeks, liberals and flunkies. The reality is I weight 400 pounds and wash myself with a rag on a stick. When I get hungry my wife feeds me the fungus that grows in my many folds. Ace McWicked 22:53, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

umm. I made an article. :-D or a list, rather. but nobody noticed. :p only 49 more to go! Refugee 19:40, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Voxhumana

Any idea why they deleted their essays and truncated their user page?--Burzum 07:53, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps the reaction to his "Clever girls" idea. 30px^talk 13:30, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

So what was that, again? I don't think I read that thread. Tobul Oltarolin 23:56, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Creating a category based around female scientists/skeptics/philosophers. Ty^talk 00:01, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

No worries - looks like he's back! a whole bunch o' edits recently Refugee 19:44, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I actually never stopped. I just became a non-participant in the "community" aspect, as I don't really fit in. I tried to drop out quietly, but I screwed up by removing my sysop rights a second time, which brought unwanted attention to myself. (I got annoyed - stupidly - when I saw they had been restored, and acted without thinking the consequences through... dumb). I had also made a few attempts to arouse interest in developing articles and discussing content, but that went nowhere, which added to my decision. So now I just write essays and articles that nobody reads. Voxhumana 22:41, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense. I read them. Ty^talk 22:49, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Aw, well that's cool, thanks. I read them all too - Armandikov has written some fantastic essays. Voxhumana 23:35, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I LOVE reading the essays. Ty has written a good one about his life, Dumpling did the same thing. Refugee 23:54, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Mini drama already? Dude, you fit right in! Armondikov 14:18, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah but the drama only came about because I attempted to avoid drama. Had I made a drama, then there would have been no drama... oh wait, that doesn't work. Voxhumana 21:26, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

navigation bar

I was wondering if it would be possible to move the "Treehouse" link upward on the navigation bar, (that box on the left of screen right under the walking brain) like to maybe position 5, right under "WIGO at RW" - so that it is 5th in the list, after: Main Page, Recent Changes, RW User Profile, WIGO, then Treehouse. ? Right now it's placed down there at next to last place between Help and Tech Suport. I think it should be higher on the list. and no, I don't have anything better to do than complain about minute items of little-to-no importance. :p Refugee 23:53, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

A;right, I'll try and do it. Ty^talk 00:12, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Great! It looks much better there! Refugee 00:39, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Election predictions/flaming/etc.

Have at. Ty^talk 03:57, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

The last set of mods seem to have the best chance of winning again by virtue of the fact incumbents tend to have an advantage. --Mikal 04:15, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Well I'm a new voter, and I'll be attempting to offset incumbency. There are four mods I will be voting for solely on the basis they are decent folks, and I would vote for them if this had been an initial election. However there are two I will not vote for as they are assholes (plus one I'm neutral about). Thus there are five non-mods I will be voting for initially, and the 4 current mods will get votes 6-9 to offset the incumbency advantage. Voxhumana 07:47, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I do not believe there is an incumbency advantage. I doubt hat most members of the side could name the existing moderators.--False Flag 14:49, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

My predictions: Ace McWicked, Sterile, Blue, AD, and WaitingforGodot will all be elected. Ace McWicked and Sterile will win largely due to their poster spamming. (If RW ever hits Uncyclopedia's size, it'll get really bad, as the most active users start getting talk page spam from a dozen people asking for votes every election cycle, which is how things are over on Uncyc. There may be an major backlash against the practice in the future, though it's tolerable for now.)

I see one of two things happening with Human: (1) He doesn't get elected. (2) He does get elected, but by a smaller margin than previously, which will shrink with each successive election cycle, as more and more people realize what a pathetic, bitter, counter-productive dick he is, until eventually he's little more than the Ron Paul joke candidate.

The remaining slot (DickTurpis/Genghis Khant, depending on who loses out to Sterile)—two slots, if Human loses—is a little more interesting to me. They have the standard incumbent advantage, which on RW means "will never ever fucking lose, barring something major," but I like speculating anyways, so here are the people I feel have a shot at taking it:

• Armondikov is very prominent, generally respected, and smart to boot. Probably the strongest candidate for the remaining slot(s).
• Weaseloid is reasonably well-liked and well-respected. Definite possibility.
• ListenerX consistently ranks between the 8th and 10th spots in elections and may finally luck out.
• Kels is well-liked and a former heavyweight on the site. Her absence for the past year definitely hurts her, but I think she has the same shot at winning as Weaseloid.
• Nutty Roux. Well-known, if not necessarily well-liked. He's a long-time member, intelligent when he feels like putting out the effort, and heavily involved in site/community management. However, his push to de-Conservapedia RW hurt his draw among the CP crowd, and his occasional turns as Captain Asshole hurt him with everyone else.
• Dumpling is thoroughly liked, though many may not necessarily consider her moderator material.
• Sophie (formerly Totnesmartin) is a one-time major user of the site, and would've breezed through the elections if they had been held in 2008. Their star may have faded, but an asteroid could foreseeably strike all the other candidates and allow them to eke out a win.

That concludes four paragraphs of overthinking a popularity contest on the internet. Hans Johnson as in "keep ya hans off my" ^{(cover your eyes!)} 08:10, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

You left out Armondikov who I regarded as a very strong candidate. I voted Sterile 3rd lowest (19th) solely as a spam backlash. Voxhumana 08:42, 30 June 2012 (UTC) can someone turn off this stupid adding two numbers together thing?

Added Armondikov and made you autoconfirmed, so you can avoid the filter. Hans Johnson as in "keep ya hans off my" ^{(cover your eyes!)} 09:30, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the autoconfirm. I'm puzzled as to why you think ListenerX will luck out, I think his chance are good. hmmm, I still have to do the adding together thing Voxhumana 09:56, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I think ListenerX would make a good moderator, but he has a hard time winning. When he's reasonable, he's very very reasonable, and when he's not, he can spend a paragraph going off the rails, as everyone slowly backs away from him. The former builds enough support to garner a respectable placement on people's ballots—usually between 5 and 10. The latter gives him a reputation as the crazy anti-Commie guy, and ensures he rarely has enough ballots ranking him in the 1 to 7 range to actually win a seat. It also doesn't help that, while principled, the positions he takes in site politics aren't always popular. Hans Johnson as in "keep ya hans off my" ^{(cover your eyes!)} 10:44, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Never mind, it was a "Proper English" vs "Crazy American English" thing :) Where I live, "lucked out" is a bad thing, like "bombed out", "struck out", "crashed out", etc, whereas you meant it as a good thing. Hence I understand what you meant in the first place now. Voxhumana 10:57, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd wondered if that was the case. But it's all fine, since it meant I got to blather about politics for another paragraph :-) Hans Johnson as in "keep ya hans off my" ^{(cover your eyes!)} 11:02, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

A far more effective way to "punish" whomever you want is to not vote for them. That counts in this system. I'm also not sure that someone who's been around for a month has a good sense of people's long term behavior and contributions, but whatever. Sterile 15:16, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

No I voted for everyone, down to 21. While giving you a rank of 19 can never have any effect on the final tally (obvious once you have analyzed the voting method), it could have a symbolic value (although only if the raw data is released). And I'm also not sure that it's smart to conduct wholesale spamming of people who have not had the opportunity to otherwise acquire a "good sense of people's long-term behavior". Plus I've been here for over six months, and during that time my only contact with you was when you spammed my talk page (something no-one else did). So yes, I did form a very negative impression of you as a result, and one which was not helped by the pissy "oh how dare a newbie criticise my loftiness". I have thoroughly formed an opinion of you now, that's for sure. Voxhumana 22:25, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Admit it, Vox, you just don't like goats. Tobul Oltarolin 23:57, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, I'll admit I did grow up on a goat farm, and thus perhaps there are deep-seated childhood issues at play here. But I still hate spam. Voxhumana 00:31, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I thought as much.

More importantly though, you originally arrived on Jan 11 but then did not edit again until June 6. [1] This means that while you technically meet the requirements to vote in an election you haven't really been here as long as that would suggest. Hence sterile can't be blamed for not having run into you before. Tobul Oltarolin 02:09, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, if you check the record, I almost never win anything here. Never been a mod. Heck the wiki nearly imploded when they tried to make me a 'crat. If you wish to frame it as spam, so be it, but most of us call it good fun, and part of what used to make RW interesting; I certainly could sent you more, and I think I take my reputation at the wiki, thanks, and it's really not "pissy." And rank 19 can be singificant if others are eliminated. Sterile 21:24, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

To False Flag - I agree that there probably isn't much of an incumbency advantage (especially seeing as we've only had two and a half elections). I do think that a significant amount of the vote is based on perception, which is made up of how much you think a candidate "deserves" your vote and whether they have a reputation as a good moderator, and likability. AD will be re-elected based on his highly favorable perception. This may also work out for the success of DickTurpis, Kels, and Weaseloid. Likability may be the "ace" in the hole for Ace McWicked (though we shouldn't forget how he lost the by-election to the likes of Nx, whose likability is in the dump) and WaitingforGodot.

The "deserves it" factor is strongest for LArron, Sophie, Sterile and Genghis Khant, the latter three all "old guard." It was originally Human's strong point, but I suspect his luster has faded in recent months, as he was only sporadically active and mostly caused low-key drama when he was editing.

I would be very happy if Armondikov and ListenerX overcame somewhat poor performances in recent elections, as they are level-headed and smart (just don't mention the Reds near LX).

Reckless Noise Symphony and The Foxhole Atheist are hurt by their inactivity. Stabby the Misanthrope faces reputation and possibly even name recognition issues. Dumpling and Mikal are relatively new, which will be a nearly insurmountable hurdle to overcome if past elections are any guide.

It will be very interesting to see the performance of the two candidates who actually mentioned me by name in accepting their nominations. Nutty Roux and Human are running on a platform that seems to be "Oust Blue and Defeat the Moderator System", and want to make this election a referendum on the entire past year and my role in it. I do not think they will be very successful in accomplishing their goals, but it's entirely possible they are elected anyway.

In conclusion, I think the candidates will rank as follows (not counting myself):

1. AD
2. WaitingforGodot
3. DickTurpis
4. Kels
5. Sterile
6. Weaseloid
7. Genghis Khant
8. Ace McWicked
9. Sophie
10. Nutty Roux
11. ListenerX
12. Armondikov
13. Human
14. Stabby the Misanthrope
15. LArron
16. Reckless Noise Symphony
17. Dumpling
18. The Foxhole Atheist
19. Mikal
20. Andy Frankinson

This is not what my ballot looked like, obviously, but it's my bet. Liveware Problem 20:00, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

You've ranked Human too low and Dick too high, I think. Tobul Oltarolin 21:55, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Taking offers on inside information, bid starts at $100, there is a reserve. Tmtoulouse 02:45, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Are Zimbabwean dollars accepted? They had beeter not be, or Psy will aboutbid us all. Tobul Oltarolin

There is one thing I don't understand - both of them are moderator candidates (one is an encumbent) - so why is it that both Hans and Livewire ommitted their alter egos from their lists/analysis? Refugee 03:25, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Bad form perhaps. Ty^talk 03:27, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I just found it strange. oh well. My personal opinion is that most of the incumbents will be re-elected, except that those who have not participated much recently may not be. I think both the analysis above were pretty much right on track. Refugee 03:31, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't make predictions, it allows me to act smug regardless of who wins. Ty^talk 03:34, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

(EC) I for one wouldn't be comfortable with making any prediction about where I would place public, and I'd suspect that Hans and LW are the same. Tobul Oltarolin 03:35, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Ty I voted for you last time and thought you should run this time - who has more dedication to RW/RWW? and Tobul I understand the reasoning, but it would have been less confusing if they would have just mentioned something like "ommitted self from list" or something, because I kept thinking, something's not right here - then I realized what is was, then why. oh well, lots of discussion about this issue, hmm? But I just read the raw data from last time on Voxhumana's RW talk page, that can't be correct can it? Refugee 03:47, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

On second thought, nevermind. It's obvious I don't understand anything about the single transferrable vote thing. Disregard previous thought plz. Refugee 03:54, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Too much stuff to do, too many toes stepped on. Time to just watch for a bit. Ty^talk 05:25, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

(EC)I think LP said she omitted herself, at least.

Vox's list just shows the average rank that people gave a certain person, and gives an extra dimension to the results that simply who won doesn't give. For example, I voted for Human near the end of my stack, but my vote would never have counted down that far. This pulls his average down in Vox's list, but does not actually effect whether he won or not. Tobul Oltarolin 03:57, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

As I said, low rankings are purely symbolic, they have zero impact on the voting tallies. They are fun as discussion fodder however. Voxhumana 05:15, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

edit break

Since everyone's dying to hear my analysis, here it is: AD will probably be elected, based on being respected and effective. Blue perhaps too, though she's significantly more controversial. I agree with Tobul that I'm ranked too high on the above list. I think I have a decent chance of being in the top 7, but I'm not at all confident. Nutty will be a wild card. In the first election I believe he was the big winner and the only one to be elected outright, without needing other votes trickling down to him. He didn't run last time, but if he still has that sort of support he'll be a shoo-in. However, he has been a bit more of a controversial editor since then, though that doesn't necessarily hurt. I'm guessing some of his support went to Human and Ace last time, so with Nutty on the ballot their candidacies could suffer, particularly Human, who has pissed off a fair number of people over the last couple years. Kels would do well if she hadn't disappeared for a year and reappeared just a couple weeks ago. I didn't vote for her for that reason, but others might not have any such qualms. Weaseloid won in the past, has good posters, and seems like a strong candidate. I tend to lump him and Pi together in terms of the sort of moderators they are (maybe I'm way off in doing this; I'm not sure where this notion comes from to be honest) and may have sort of split votes between them last time, explaining why neither won (STV should temper this, but not eliminate it entirely, I think). Godot, Sterile, Armondikov, and Genghis should all do well, based on past performances and being well liked ( I think). Armondikov was among the top people in terms of number of total votes, but not being the first choice of anyone he was eliminated early. If he can prevent that from happening again he should be a favorite, although his lack of participation on the campaigning page may put him at a slight disadvantage (or maybe no one gives a shit about that; I really can't say). Sophie might be at a disadvantage if there are a lot of voters like me who had no idea she was totnesmartin until reading this page just now (you know people, if you didn't change your fucking names all the time this wouldn't be an issue; I'm looking at you too "El Taj"). LArron could be a dark horse here, as he seems well liked and respected, and is a wizard with the graphs and shit (if people care about that in a moderation election, you never know). ListenerX had my problem of always doing well, but not well enough (my number finally came up last time, but only by a hair's breadth, I think), this could be his year, or it could be more of the same. I'd wager on him being an alternate. Ace was the big winner last time, so has momentum, but Nutty will likely draw some of his support this time. I don't think both of them will make it, but I'd bet on one. Goonie would also be a favorite if he were more active, and still stands a strong chance. He probably did himself in last time by announcing he's resign as mod if elected to the board (which he was). I'm calling everyone else a longshot. Long story short, 6 picks (these do not reflect my votes, which have already been cast): AD, Nutty, Blue, Godot, Genghis, and Weaseloid. The 7th is a toss up between me, Ace, RNS, and Armondikov. ListenerX and LArron are basically right up there too. With a single first tier vote basically making all the difference (last time a total of 7 votes were needed to be elected) it's really anyone's game. That being said, vote Turpis first, and whatever fuckers you like after that. Turpis 18:38, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I'll bite.

• Ace -- Beloved by the old guard. Useless as an editor. Spam campaign has pissed people off. Will split the wikianarchist vote, basically running on WIGO:CP and friends. He'll still likely make it.
• AD -- Good guy, well liked. Probably make it.
• Andy -- Snowball's chance in hell, may gain joke/protest votes
• Armondikov -- May catch flack for the whole Putsch. Well respected mainspace editor, frequent Bar editor, not so active on WIGO:CP
• Blue -- Toss up. Email-gate was probably a big hit for her. The wikianarchist wing hates her guts.
• Dick Turpis -- Reasonable guy, seems sane. Not a big name, but will likely get in.
• Dumpling -- Hasn't been active recently, but is well liked.
• Genghis Khant -- I cannot think of anything to say, but he was reelected so he might stay
• Human -- Many friends, many enemies. One thing we should note is that his glory days are over, the past year he has done very little. Newbs might view him as a troll. Will get the wikianarchist vote.
• Kels -- Name recognition. People who have been around a while will know her, but shes been gone a year.
• ListenerX -- Provided he shys away from a few topics is a resonable guy. Might make it.
• LArron -- beloved on WIGO, a complete nonentity elsewhere. Edits mainspace even less than Kels, Nutty, and Ace.
• Mikal -- Up and comer. Might be worth a few small side bets.
• Nutty Roux -- I agree with Hans's sentiment. He's very dedicated to RationalWIki. Will get the wikianrachist vote. Newbs vote though...
• Reckless Noise Symphony -- Inactivity hurts him, otherwise I could see him getting a spot.
• Sophie -- Name recognition problems, otherwise agree with Hans
• Stabby -- has the baggage with a lot of people, seems to have turned over a new leaf. Long shot, but maybe
• Sterile -- Sporadic heavy hitter. Poster campaign has had mixed results. Maybe.
• The Foxhole Atheist -- Who?
• Godot -- Well liked except by PC and Human, and who cares about PC? Definitely
• Weaseloid -- reasonable, sane, and excellent posters. Will likely make it.

Those are my uneducated guesswork opinions. Mbwun 21:25, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Must remember to run a "Reds-under-the-bed" campaign for the next election. Maybe someone will even provide some laughs by taking it seriously. ListenerX^TalkerX 22:00, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

There's still time... Tobul Oltarolin 22:02, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm always a bit surprised at the perception that I'm the most "controversial" candidate. If anything, whatever drama I've caused is tangential to certain editors' longtime antics. But perception is a finnicky thing. Liveware Problem 22:14, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Perception is finicky and spin is important. It seems all the "RULEZ" have been blamed on you. Mbwun 22:24, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

[EC] Is anyone saying you're the most controversial? I'm not, at least. However, for whatever reasons, you are more controversial than most, even if it isn't entirely your doing. (Um, you are Blue, right?) The whole email thing at the beginning of the term was an exercise in bad judgement, in my mind, and handled poorly by both you and Human. That's basically water over the damn at this stage though. Turpis 22:26, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Depends on who you are talking to. And the ability to carry long term grudges never ceases to amuse me. Mbwun 22:28, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

People are discussing me more often in this one section than in about 3-4 years of being registered on RW. This confuses yet amuses me. Armondikov 23:16, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I feel the same way. Oh and can someone make it so I don't have to do a second grade math problem every time I edit? I'm Dick Fucking Turpis. Turpis 23:29, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

"I'm Dick Fucking Turpis, bitch" Armondikov 00:28, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Everybody's doing it!

• Ace -- despite his cool drinker persona, Ace keeps his head when all (chickens) around are losing theirs.
• AD -- Nice guy, no particular enemies or baggage, should get many second-or-third choice votes.
• Andy Fsomething (or is it Hsomething?) -- Hudafuq?
• Armondikov -- Left RW only to come back when nominated for the Loya Jirga (remember that?). Settled back in now and should get in.
• Blue -- A real marmite editor, which could go against her. Or for her.
• Dick Turpis -- Has never been a main player but long stay on the site could bank a few for him.
• Dumpling -- Popular, but perhaps too nice for the job?
• Genghis Khant -- A grizzled veteran, should make it as a steady, experienced hand.
• Human -- His "let's ditch all these stupid rules" stance will get him some votes, but equally the bitching and fighting will put people off.
• Kels -- Has basically blown it with her thirteen-month absence.
• ListenerX -- Always there or thereabouts in elections. A known quantity and, despite his outlier opinions, has some traction.
• LArron -- Brilliant graphs, but these aren't the graphmaker elections.
• Mikal -- Good user, but maybe this one is too soon.
• Nutty Roux -- Strongly-held opinions are fine, but can overdo the anger. This may put people off, but it's helped him before.
• Reckless Noise Symphony -- Used to be a big wheel, but has fallen away on the edit front and may lack name recognition.
• Sophie -- As per RNS above, also tendency to LANCB and low edit rate will harm her chances.
• Stabby -- Probably has too much of a past, although the new lot might not care that much.
• Sterile -- A dark horse. Ancient 2007 veteran who dropped out, his recent stuff makes him look new. He could get the best of both worlds.
• The Foxhole Atheist -- Would make a fine mod but his microscopic RW profile will count against him.
• WaitingforGodot -- seems to have made an enemy of Proxima. This should work in her favour, thus proving RW is pro-Christian.
• Weaseloid -- Another long-term inmate, has built a good base on being reasonable, and will get the ferret overlord vote.

Rennie McGreet 23:36, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Last election, Blue and Ace McWicked both ran on a campaign promise not to use any mod abilities until proper guidelines were in place. Blue was the only one of the two who might have had the drive to take the lead on creating some guidelines, but couldn't keep her pledge for more than a few days before locking a page at mod level following the whole email debacle, and seems to have subsequently forgotten about putting any guidelines in place. The incident will damage (but not destroy) her credibility this round, or at least it should (if this is anything more than a glorified popularity contest), but she has enough community standing and respect (except from a few vocal detractors) to hold her place, methinks.

Human commands some loyalty from the Old Guard, but has become a parody of himself and a virtual community outsider in recent years. Those who've always liked him still like him, those who've always hated him still hate him, but anybody newish to the site only knows him as the grumpy guy who shows up periodically with insults and demands before disappearing again while everyone badmouths him. Users who voted for him last election must have hoped that the win would draw him back into the community and maybe make him dial back the bitterness a notch or two. This hasn't happened, and absentee moderators aren't much use to anyone, so he'll lose quite a few votes this time, or at least he should (if this is anything more than a glorified popularity contest)

Nevertheless, Human has said he wants to abolish moderators, so that will guarantee a few votes from the "no more mods" crowd, along with Nutty Roux and Ace McWicked. Nutty is the wise choice for anyone seriously opposed to the moderator system; it's not clear what, if anything, he's going to do about it, but he's more likely to be constructive and cooperative than Ace and Human. Ace has made it very clear who he likes and who he hates; less so what his policies are, and he seems to be running more or less on popularity alone. He probably has enough of that to scrape through, but he shouldn't count on that, as he's known for misbehaving with user rights and has pissed off a fair few people.

Armondikov is well liked for the most part, excepting the "no more mods" crowd, but suffers from many of the same faults as his old rival Human (acting unilaterally, dictating what's best for the wiki, not coping well with criticism).

Those are the five that will really polarize voter opinions. I predict Blue and Ace will keep their seats, Human will lose his, and Nutty and Armondikov will both rank highly, possibly as mods or alternates.

AD and WaitingforGodot are almost universally liked and respected (except by oddballs like Cicero and Brx) and will be re-elected for sure.

Genghis, Turpis, Weaseloid and ListenerX (despite his cranky worldview) are the middle rankers. They may not be the most dynamic RWians or the ones new editors notice first, but they're a safe bet and tend to remain calm and sensible, which is what the role needs. They'll do well, and at least a couple of them will make the team; their chances are pretty even in my view.

Dumpling is loved by all, but not really associated with site politics. She actually wouldn't make a bad moderator, but has been absent a lot recently. She has an outside chance of a few strong votes.

Kels, Sophie, Stabby, Sterile and Goonie are all popular figures whose current standing and recognition are hampered by recent absence, inactivity or general low profile. Kels has the biggest chance of them, and might be in with a shot, but would be a bit of a surprise victory as she was absent for over a year until the moment of being nominated.

Foxhole Atheist, Mikalos and LArron don't stand high chances, in my opinion. Andy Frankinobody isn't even eligible to vote (unless he makes a flurry of edits this week) and nobody else will vote for him, except whoever's sock he happens to be, and aspie types who think they have to give a ranking to every single candidate (for symbolic value, don'tchaknow). Flep Hendersen 23:46, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the candidates and all the predictions above, I'd say AD, Godot, Genghis, ListenerX, and Ace with 2 up in the air between Armondikov, Dick, Blue, Nutty, and Weaseloid. Who declined to run is also interesting. I'm surprised that Pi declined to run, h's reasonably popular if a bit inactive, and was eligible for election. I think Refugee would have made a good Mod, though she did not run. I'd also would have liked to see ToP and PeterL run, ToP is an old guarder with a lot of respect, Peter a good up and comer. Also surprised Psy didn't run, he's pretty much beloved by many. Ty seems to have gotten it in his thick skull that nobody likes him, and the possibility of Mara on the Mods has thankfully been nipped in the bud. Guybrush Threepwood 23:57, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Touché. Ty^talk 00:10, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

As someone who joined in 2012, here are some impressions. I do not have the information to state who I think will win, but I do have general feels of the candidates to me, that I have picked up from my short time here. I don't have a 'long view' picture, only a shortview picture, and a vague one at that:

Ace McWicked. Seems OK, has the potential to be semi-unpleasant.

I would not mind AD, AD seems like an OK guy.

I do not know who Andy is, or not enough to endorse.

Armondikov is OK and radiates authority. I like him a lot.

DickTurpis is OK and keeps up great discussion.

Dumpling is by far the cutest, most charismatic candidate.

Ghengis Khant seems OK, and also looks to be an up-and-comer.

If human wins, it is a disaster waiting to happen. Let's not do that.

I have no idea about Kels, sorry!

9 times out of 10 ListenerX is OK, but he is shockingly uninformed on a few topics I see the site really elaborating on in the future.

I suppose LArron is OK, but I don't know enough about him. His posts are informed and not-offensive.

Mikal is similar.

Nutty Roux is too ill-mannered; I would not want him to represent us, or have to make decisions. Even if the social structure of RW is loose and informal, we would not be electing moderators if they didn't have some kind of community authority.

Reckless Noise Symphony is nice, but beyond that I don't know much other than that I like his progressiveness.

Weaseloid is not moderator material: his response to conflict (that I have seen at least once) is to try and to defame the opposition and make unsupported assertions. That's not really responsible.

I don't know enough about Sophie.

Stabby has left a pretty good impression on me, but I can't say how he'd do in a position of authority. I just haven't seen him tested.

Sterile is OK. Like Stabby, I don't know how Sterile goes under pressure, so I don't know anything useful.

The Foxhole Atheist has a really really cool background and every time I see the name I want to high-five him. But I don't know much about him for real, so I can't say.

Godot is long-suffering, wise, informed, and progressive, and I think a great participant. Ten points for sticking in the face of fire and people who don't have the same experience/knowledge as her and explaining social issues to an audience that seems to dismiss her time and time again. I do want Godot to win, she is a trooper.

Blue is also smart and informed on social issues, but I fear recent dramas make election very unlikely. :(

TheCurtlyKnave 01:25, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

What are the areas the Wiki will be expanding into that I know squat about? ListenerX^TalkerX 03:31, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

What do you know about the politics of post-civil war Sri Lanka? Tobul Oltarolin 03:44, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

LX - if I'm right, she's referring to the possible expansion into feminist topics and other Female Attractors^TM, which you dismiss as identity politics and have compared to "the ravings of postmodernists." Liveware Problem 03:56, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

(One text-search of the Wiki later) Unless that is not an exact quote, the only thing I compared "the ravings of postmodernists" to is reality-based exegesis. Also, although I probably did do it at some point, it would appear that mentioning "identity politics" and "feminism" in the same sentence is not being ill-informed, but touching an ideological sore spot. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:56, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I have one very stark memory that comes to mind: sometime in the past few months or so, Mr. ListenerX displayed a shocking case of denial of the discrimination and exclusion of women in computing and technology jobs, especially high-end ones, on the basis of 'I have worked in X for X years and I never saw any! He says this to a person who not only lives around MIT and has seen first hand the exclusive culture of entry programming jobs, has worked at a robotics company and observed it, upon attending college sociology and womens' studies courses found it to be the widely-accepted finding of the academic community, and observed a friend going into high-tech that was almost dissuaded by school guidance from the career due to a prevailing attitude in low-levels of being a bro-clubhouse, etc. etc. etc. While some of this is anecdote vs anecdote the highly dismissive attitude in the face of confrontation rubbed me the entirely wrong way and even before I knew there were elections coming up led me to conclude 'Hm, this person is not a good pick for a position of power; he values his own anecdotes with undue weight even when confronted with very widely known and widely published upon findings. TheCurtlyKnave 13:31, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Are you talking about this? I do not see you confronting me with any findings there — only wild allegations that can be disproven by anecdote, since they involve pervasive and overt behavior that could be easily witnessed by anyone present in a workplace. But, despite that, I admitted the possibility that my anecdotal observations did not apply to the area you were talking about, since I am a scientist rather than an engineer.

As to the studies you learned about in sociology and women's studies, I recommend reading RationalWiki's articles on "confirmation bias" and "lies, damned lies, and statistics," if you have not already. Then you might try digging a little deeper into the methodology used for many studies in those fields; my perspective on these issues did a 180 when I did that. ListenerX^TalkerX 06:47, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Yep! ListenerX dismisses an entire legitimate body of academic work (not merely 'studies,' although I linked some for example purposes and to appease you when you scream CITE CITE CITE DENY DENY I NEVER SAW IT IT MUST NOT BE TRUE) as 'confirmation bias.' My whole two semesters on the intersectionality of gender, class, and race of the USA, which heavily included workplace discrimination and exclusivity, is definitely confirmation bias and I am only paying attention to situations that fit the model. Uh-huh. In no way was the material covered actually covered because it's actually true. ListenerX as candidate, gentlemen! Vote wisely! TheCurtlyKnave 20:12, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Simmer down; simmer down. I was not denying the validity of the data in question, only pointing out that in the original debate you did not actually "confront" me with anything but your own experience. At the time, this confused me, because what the data show and what you were claiming are entirely different animals. To wit:

It was my understanding that the current data indicate that (to quote one of the studies you cited above) "most overt discrimination against women in the sciences has been reduced or eliminated in recent decades." In other words, most of the bias against women remaining in STEM fields is "systemic," not intentional or overt. Your claims, on the other hand, were of pervasive overt discrimination/hostility — i.e., a false generalization, via confirmation bias, of your internship experience where you were ordered to get sandwiches. ListenerX^TalkerX 06:56, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to make any guesses on who will be elected moderator, but I will say this: if Reckless Noise Symphony is elected, I am going to leave and never come back. That son of a bitch should be permabanned for his blatant abuses of power and his failure to bow down and worship the Holy Goat. Plus, I heard he broke a kid's arm once. Punky McPunkerson 14:01, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I won't LANCB under any circumstances, but probably regardless of the outcome of the election I will sit in the corner of RationalWiki and give it disapproving, awkward stares. TheCurtlyKnave 14:11, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

My raw data analysis

Just as a general note, by all means feel free to discuss my analysis, but PLEASE bear in mind it is nothing more than playing with numbers to find patterns (which may or may not be of interest). I've seen a few comments at RWW and RW which suggest my data somehow throws the original voting results into doubt and they definitely do NOT.

I've only done a quick and dirty average vote value list so far, I'm open to any other suggestions for analysis. Here is my reorganized raw data for anyone else to dump into Excel if they want to play along. Voxhumana 05:35, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Nah, if people really thought that your data invalidated the results then the shitstorm would already be past force 11. Tobul Oltarolin 05:55, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I would hope so. The main value is in seeing the sentiment behind some of the voting (and provoking pointless discussions, obviously). Some other interesting stuff is emerging which I'll post soon enough. Voxhumana 06:01, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

The published data wasn't 100% complete. My votes were missed off the published data in error, but were apparently counted towards the results (see thread here). This might have happened with others too. So if there's a discrepancy between the election results & what the data analysis shows, that would be the reason. Weaselicious ^{Bite Me} 10:27, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Well fuck. That just screwed everything :) Voxhumana 11:13, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I thought that was fixed? That's a pity then. Tobul Oltarolin 22:02, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, oh well. With the votes I have, Weaseloid was the first to be eliminated (no 1st round votes, but a fractional inheritance from Ace). If Weaseloid self-voted, then that would change the equation considerably, they would make it through to the second round of analysis, and others would be eliminated and Weasel would pick up at least one more vote. As I can't ask for the missing voting results without violating Weaseloid's right to privacy, it has rendered my voting analysis meaningless. But the preferences analysis still revealed some interesting results. Voxhumana 22:54, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Steps have been taken to make reporting data easier but I am not going to revisit the old data. 50.130.133.249 23:24, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

As I said, even if you were willing, there's no point. It would violate Weaseloid's privacy, and preserving that is more important that any analysis IMO. Voxhumana 00:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

What the....

• Beloved by the old guard. Useless as an editor. Spam campaign has pissed people off. Will split the wikianarchist vote, basically running on WIGO:CP and friends. He'll still likely make it.
• despite his cool drinker persona, Ace keeps his head when all (chickens) around are losing theirs.
• Ace has made it very clear who he likes and who he hates; less so what his policies are, and he seems to be running more or less on popularity alone. He probably has enough of that to scrape through, but he shouldn't count on that, as he's known for misbehaving with user rights and has pissed off a fair few people.
• Seems OK, has the potential to be semi-unpleasant.

None of the above is right, you are all wrong. Does no one realise I am a 47 yr old mother of 6? Ace McWicked 01:51, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

And what's this less so what his policies are bullshit? There are no policies for mod except what is already written. Ace McWicked 01:53, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Jumping on the listing bandwagon

*ahem*

• Ace McWicked—everyone loves 47 year old mothers of 6, has a high chance of getting in. Has even shown an ability to do the job, against all logic and reason.
• AD—loved by (almost) everyone, has the slight disadvantage that everyone will think that everyone else will vote for him, so they don't have to. We shall see if that happens.
• Andy Frankinson—significantly less quality than previous snowballs-chance-in-hell candidates; agree with Flep here.
• Armondikov—'well liked,' as they say, at least if you don't count those that still hold a grudge from the May business. I doubt he'll get in though, but I think he'd do a reasonable job of it if he did.
• Blue—perception here will be key, far outweighing the actual reality (whatever that is). The email business will hurt, but how much? It was a while ago, and I feel that most of those who still think that that's significant already hate her guts anyway. Will probably be at least an alternate.
• DickTurpis—may not be as lucky this time as last, but that's a pity as they seem good at the job. Hopefully he'll be at least an alternate, and I think that's still fairly likely.
• Dumpling—very much well liked, but inactive lately. She'll probably be the proof that the mod elections aren't entirely a popularity contest, and probably wont place all that well. But you never know.
• Genghis Khant—has been a mod from the beginning, but what have they done? Then again, I haven't really encountered them all that much so I don't really know. I'm going with 'likely alternate,' but I could easily be wrong.
• Human—while I've already mentioned that I don't overly like human, I disagree both with the optimism of some above that he is unlikely to get in, and a little with the knaves idea that he's a disaster waiting to happen. He's been a mod for six months already and nothing has happened: he needs to be around more and with more active and powerful allies before I'll get worried. That being said, if he gets in and blue is reduced to first alternate I do predict disaster, especially if human realises tha- Oh, you'll find out eventually.
• Kels—may do better than some have said, but if she wanted to actually win she should have returned nearer March. Not sure how well she'd do as mod.
• ListenerX—should do moderately well, as always. I've seen him edit war a fair bit, however, so if he does become a mod I hope he remembers not do do that.
• LArron—would make a reasonable mod, I think, especially if he can be persuaded to edit outside of TWIGO more often. Probably wont do well in the vote, however.
• Mikal—with apologies like his he'd make a better mod than many, but there is a predjudice against voting for newbies so I don't think he'll get a placing even at the alternate level. A pity.
• Nutty Roux—didn't expect him to run this time, I don't think he'd be very productive at the job. That being said I disagree with the knave here all but completely.
• Reckless Noise Symphony—provided he doesn't take all his other power (chairman of the board, head honcho here etc) and turn himself into an absolute dictator he would make a good mod. Might be an alternate, don't expect him to win (too inactive, like a few other people).
• Sophie—would make a good mod, I think, but needs to be more active. We shall see.
• Stabby the Misanthrope—apparently has some kind of dark past that he has made a clean break from? Seems to be a very clean break, if you ask me. I still can't see him getting in though.
• Sterile—Vox is probably the only person to have a serious dislike of him that I know of. Might strike it lucky this time, hopefully he does.
• The Foxhole Atheist—who? j/k, I hope he gets in and I think he'd make a great mod (assuming he is active enough), but I don't think he has a very good chance.
• WaitingforGodot—enumerations of her sworn enemies above have missed out Brx and Human, but who cares about them? One of the most likely people to get in, along with AD.
• Weaseloid—was MIA most of their previous term. I'm not sure where the knave got her dislike from. The little rodent probably wont make it this time though.

I think that's everything. Tobul Oltarolin 03:28, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

"if he gets in and blue is reduced to first alternate I do predict disaster, especially if human realises tha- Oh, you'll find out eventually." - Hopefully somewhere in Marcus' novel! Liveware Problem 03:49, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

It's been months without so much as a peep from him about that. I might have to withdraw my advance. Tobul Oltarolin 04:38, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Could it be that we haven't heard from him because he's actually writing it? Rennie McGreet 08:38, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

But I'll just come out and say it; if you "still hold a grudge from the May business" then I don't particularly care - Fuck you, idiot. Armondikov 11:32, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Pretty much agree wholeheartedly with ADK there. That was over a fucking year ago, and people still holding a grudge over that need to grow the fuck up. Seriously, who on Earth seriously holds a grudge that long over something that happened on the internet? Punky McPunkerson 12:10, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Several big names come to mind, but I don't want to point fingers. Seriously though, Armondikov is dead on. Liveware Problem 19:43, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey now. Grudges require love and attention like a particularly needy plant. Mine was flowering beautifully before when it died. Hans Johnson as in "keep ya hans off my" ^{(cover your eyes!)} 21:51, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I understand there is some RWW based drama with Hans, though I forget what and don't particularly care. Sorry the grudge had to die with a whimper. Armondikov 23:47, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I never said there were very many such people. Tobul Oltarolin 00:17, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

(quoting) Sterile—Vox is probably the only person to have a serious dislike of him that I know of.(end of quote). Whoa, I have no problem with Sterile. I was greatly annoyed by the spam campaign, that's all. Voxhumana 04:21, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

The spamming campaign as you put it has a proud tradition. Don't fucking knock it. Ace McWicked 04:35, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah, knock it I shall. There is a place provided to put posters, and I reviewed and enjoyed those. I did not like having it spammed on my user page, nor shall I ever. Anyone whoever does that - even someone I greatly respect - shall not get my vote. Voxhumana 05:37, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

<sarcasm>Please don't put spam links on the wiki. I'm soooo offended.</sarcasm> Sterile 13:52, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Are you even eligible to vote? Ace McWicked 07:10, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Whenever I see tradition knocked in that way, I think of Terry Pratchett's play Nation, where a man refuses to follow the local tradition of spitting in his beer and promptly dies of poisoning. ListenerX^TalkerX 07:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, eligible to vote, and have voted. Why did you vandalise my RW user page? Have you now taken an active dislike to me because of my opinion about spam? Voxhumana 10:51, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Wandalize. Gosh, another person who wants the wiki to be a bore, and jumps to hasty conclusions. Must be something about the goats. Sterile 12:22, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Who's jumping to hasty conclusions? "...Wants the wiki to be a bore?" Fucking hell, how fucking immature are you people? Spamming your mindless shitty poster doesn't make the wiki interesting. If you stick something clever or witty or intelligent on my page I'll appreciate it, but apparently you think sticking the same limp-dick, MS Paint clip-art poster on everyone's page somehow makes this place fun and exciting? Then because I've actually got an opinion of my own and I'm not buying into your little communal bukkake session, Ace McFuckwit decides he needs to vandalise my page. I don't think I'm the one being boring here, and I'm sure as hell not the one jumping to conclusions. Love and kisses Voxhumana 13:20, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

A little, erm, defensive, maybe? You seem rather focused on characterizing people and writing dirty words rather than looking at their merits, poster or not. (That's not an MS Paint clip art; that was an image converted to a path, converted to a SVG. That took work!) And trust me, I'm one of the more mature people here. And I'm damned if I do (poster = spam overreaction by you), and damned if I don't (never win anything, wiki almost collapsed when I was cratted). So whatever, voxwhoeveryouare. Sterile 13:50, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I was unaware that my singular opposition to your spam was enough to "damn you". For fuck's sake, I'm one person - a relative newcomer at that - with one minor opinion. I didn't agitate on the issue, didn't start any discussions, didn't demand - or even vaguely suggest - that anyone else follow my lead. When someone interpreted my distaste for spam as an actual dislike for you I corrected them immediately. So seriously, why all this grief? Why are you and Ace so bent out of shape over it? I'm happy to let this incredibly minor issue go. Voxhumana 16:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

"Ace McFuckwit? Dude, you have some tough competition and that doesn't cut it. What's wrong with you? Ace McWicked 21:08, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

More meaningless election chatter

Name	Odds	Notes
Ace McWicked	55%	A very gruff form of a moderator, but he's been more active than a few other mods. His posters and his reputation will make a lot of people vote for him automatically.
AD	75%	Widely seen as the most effective and one of the most active moderators. Only one or two people actually dislike him, and he has a great deal of support from both the oldies and the newbies.
Andy Frankinson	0%
Armondikov	25%	First, I'll say that I am a strong supporter of his candidacy, but I'm trying to be objective here. Outside of a small circle, I'm not sure there's a general sense that people "know" Armondikov well enough to elect him. Where Ace exudes affability (even when he's frequently irate), ADK might come across as arrogant (even when he's actually just being rational).
Blue	30%	I'm basically Joffrey Baratheon.
DickTurpis	40%	Well-respected across the wiki and an Old Guard member, though newer members might not know who he is. He wrote a serious campaign statement, but like posters, the effectiveness of statements has yet to be determined.
Dumpling	15%	Too new to get support from the 07-08-09'ers, or at least enough support to contend with the other heavy-hitting candidates.
Genghis Khant	35%	Hasn't done much at all as a moderator, but has been re-elected before anyway. I think he relies heavily on the support of the Old Guard and CP-focused wing of RW.
Human	40%	Inexplicably popular with the Old Guard, but months of inactivity and a terrible attitude will have set him back. How much exactly remains to be seen.
Kels	42%	Don't discount her because of her LANCB. Over 50% of RW edits are made by people who registered from 2007-2009, and most of them remember her in a very favorable light. (Case in point: My two big personal "heroes" in the Old Guard are Kels and AKjeldsen.)
ListenerX	30%
LArron	20%	He's not well-known enough outside the CP watchers, I don't think, to stand a chance at election.
Mikal	5%	Too new.
Nutty Roux	35%
Reckless Noise Symphony	35%	Roundly liked, though the newest editors won't know who he is and the more sporadic editors may not know what his old username was.
Sophie	32%	Also roundly liked, though she suffers from the same pitfalls as RNS. Recent absence will hurt her as much as it hurts Kels.
Stabby the Misanthrope	20%	Name recognition issues, again! He'll get some votes from the newer crowd, but next to none from the older - and even if they knew his old account name, he was quite a polarizing figure among the Old Guard.
Sterile	37%	He's part of the furniture and his poster campaign may work to his advantage, but I wouldn't count on either as an ace in the hole.
The Foxhole Atheist	15%	"Who?"
WaitingforGodot	65%	Everyone except Human and Brxbrx admires her, though myself and LX have significant disagreements with her ideologically (very different kinds of ideological disagreements, but disagreements nonetheless) and on wikipolitics.
Weaseloid	35%

Thresholds	Meaning
50-100%	Shoo-in
40-49%	Very likely
25-39%	A chance of election, at best a competitor for 6th-9th
0-20%	Almost no chance of election, 8th-9th for a long shot

Elections are fun for everyone! Liveware Problem 20:31, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Do you really admire Godot? I don't think that's the case, but then again I can't read your mind--Brxbrx 21:26, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Shut up, brx. 74.198.87.42 21:32, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Y'all are barking up the wrong tree! Andy Frankinson is dominating! Tmtoulouse 22:06, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I have heard that Andy Frankinson can run around the world so fast he can roundhouse kick himself in the back of the head. Weaselicious ^{Bite Me} 19:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Arrogant? Moi? Damn fucking straight! Armondikov 23:45, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Wow, high praise here. Thanks for the votes of confidence and kind words, folks. I didn't know this election was being parsed so closely!--AD 02:32, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

We must do something to pass the time. Ty^talk 02:46, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Ace is in my hole? Huh. Sterile 12:18, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Moderator analysis

I more or less agree with the predictions of who will be elected, this is about what kind of mod various users are/will be.

• AD: Far too timid and concerned with his popularity to be truly effective. He is ultimately still afraid of being perceived as a "fascist aspie authoritarian cunt" (yes, we do need an article on that term and its variations) to dole out any worthwhile punishments. He also qualifies his actions with his personal feelings, which seriously dampens his decisions (Blocking brx is wrong but I can't stand him)
• Human: Causes more trouble than he could possibly mitigate, and I don't know that he's ever done anything to lessen drama/HCM
• WfG: Will refuse to do anything for fear of losing her popularity and compromising her imagined persona
• Blue: Blue doesn't press her advantages when she has them, but is otherwise a good mod
• DickTurpis: DickTurpis is great. The only fault I can find with him is that he's not around enough to moderate more

That's all for now.--Brxbrx 21:22, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

The mods can't do anything, can't hand out punishments and can't actually do anything outside a few "cool down" blocks unless pecifically asked. I don't what you, or anyone, thinks the should do. Ace McWicked 21:28, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

What a fucking waste of time to have to correct this sleaze's misrepresentations of the moderator role. I'm going to brunch. I'll get to this before I go get drunk and sunburned like the patriot I am. God you're a vile person for being unable to resist the urge to lie about and smear the prominent people you decided you don't like just because they won't give you what you want. Someone should call your mother and tell her what a troubled little bitch her son is. Nutty Roux 14:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

"dole out any worthwhile punishments" - This is actually the only part that's worth responding to, mostly because Brx continues saying it despite knowing better. "Punishments," let alone "worthwhile punishments" (read: satisfying to Brxbrx) are by community consent. The most a mod can do is grab a firehose and help people chill out for a few hours, a day at most. But of course all these people have grave faults for not doing exactly what Brx wanted. Nutty Roux 18:37, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Indeed - moderators are not in charge or able to "dole out punishments." We're neither police nor judges. At most, we are mall security guards, acting in a very temporary way towards the sole purpose of smooth running.--AD 02:40, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

The way I see it, mods have an end, but to put any real regulations on the means is foolish. Guidelines are great, but hard-and-fast rules could just restrict someone from acting to restore order. The metric used to evaluate a moderator's actions should be, Did it help make the site run smoothly, by defusing conflict, making a process more efficient, stopping abuse, etc.? Alternatively, Did it help make the site run less smoothly, by creating conflict or enabling abuse, etc.? Which is subject to interpretation, of course, but that's what elections are for.

I'm not entirely sure what "doesn't press her advantages when she has them" means, except that I didn't do what Brx wanted me to do with his sock accounts or something. Liveware Problem 03:21, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

"but to put any real regulations on the means is foolish. Guidelines are great, but hard-and-fast rules could just restrict someone from acting to restore order" The fact that you said nothing at all about limits while decrying "real regulations" is telling. The mandate is clear as day: there are firm restrictions on your right to "restore order" with the extremely limited tools you have. Nutty Roux 04:13, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Of course there are limits and restrictions, but they're not enumerated because to do so would be a counterproductive waste of time. You can't define a job by what it's not supposed to do. This is an elected position. If you're elected, you can interpret your mandate how you wish - and if you get it wrong, you won't be reelected, and if you get it really wrong, you'll be removed from office. Liveware Problem 04:41, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Counterproductive waste of time? Interpret the mandate as you wish? Who is defining the job in any other manner than exactly as Trent described it? It's not defined in terms of what you can't do because there's really no question about it. You can't do jack shit. You put out fires with the extremely limited tools you have. Talk. Block for a few hours. Lock for a few hours. That's it. How is this somehow such a big fucking mystery? Is something wrong with you that we must continue having this discussion with you apparently refusing to read what Trent wrote a year ago? I hope people considered what a vain and overreaching child you are when they voted. You still suck. Nutty Roux 06:31, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I am Brxbrx and I hate everyone who treats me the way I deserve to be treated, rather than the way I want to be treated. EricR 22:55, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Sure, that's it. How do I deserve to be treated, and why?--Brxbrx 02:44, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

This comes to mind. I wonder... Mbwun 03:39, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

You deserve to be run out on a rail and we're slowly working out how to do it. You are the most persistent unwelcome person we've had, so the rules and customs don't address the problem. I'll get back to harassing you when and if work slows down. Maybe these guys can community ban you while I'm gone. Maybe Trent will do something fun. But basically, you got nothing. No allies. No friends. Just some people trying to figure out how to make you disappear in a way that's not repugnant to our history. That's how you deserve to be treated. Nutty Roux 14:25, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Brx zone ends here

AD, Armondikov and Sterile will get in for sure. If the community is sane, Human will not. Sophie, The Foxhole Atheist, Kels and Goonie would have been top contenders yet are hampered by inactivity (do see one going through)

Specific:

• Ace McWicked - A chill-outer doesn't necessarily mean a good mod. While he's useful during HCM, that changes to the exact opposite when it's over. Will probably be re-elected due to meme status.
• Blue - Hated by the "anti-authoritarian" wikianarchists. 60%-70% chance of keeping her seat.
• DickTurpis and Genghis Khant - Not sure. Loved by the Old Guard but seem to make (relatively) little contributions overall. Wouldn't be surprised if both don't even win alternates, and the same if they stay.
• Dumpling - Nice person but doesn't feel like moderator material.
• LArron - Good with graphs (like Dumpling and her artwork), but most outside WIGO:CP don't know he exists.
• ListenerX - Manages to balance logical thinking with annoying bouts of red-baiting. If he does make it, he needs to control himself.
• Mikal - Indeed, too new. Has potential.
• Nutty Roux - Human-lite.
• Stabby - Seems to have made a turnaround, hasn't been a jerk for as long as I've been on the site. Might have a great chance next election.
• WaitingforGodot - Generally respected by everyone, will win alternate at least. My qualms is with her grammar, I understand she has dyslexia but her posts are more difficult to read every day.
• Weaseloid - Just unlucky. Will win the Mustelidae vote.

Miss anyone? 74.198.87.43 23:09, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

"If the community is sane" <- Got ya problem right here. Armondikov 23:48, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I honestly don't know why you all think I'm a shoo-in. I've been in an election siutation before and not gotten anywhere near enough votes. Sterile 12:20, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

How to get the result you want

After doing an in-depth analysis of the last results (despite it being corrupted by missing data), it became apparent how overwhelmingly important your #1 vote is. As an example, despite Armondikov having more #2 and #3 votes in the Jan 2012 election that anyone else, his lack of a #1 vote killed any chance he had. The way the system works, those with #1 votes become the only real candidates for election, the subsequent rankings then decide who in that #1 pool goes through. (For purists I'll concede there is still a theoretical chance of someone without a #1 vote getting elected, but it is *incredibly* unlikely as that person would need almost the entire pool of #2 votes). Despite having very few high ranked votes, Human got elected because he had four #1 votes, which protected him from subsequent elimination, and he was able to pick up the balance as other candidates with fewer #1 votes were eliminated. Voxhumana 04:34, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

But that is like the point of STV. Everyone gets one vote, so you put who you want most in the number one slot. 50.130.133.249 04:39, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I wrote the above just to drive that point home - the existence of the ranking can lead people to think that these rankings have more impact than they actually do. Even knowing that in advance before I did the analysis, I was still surprised at how little impact the rankings actually have. Voxhumana 05:26, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

There is certainly confusion about the voting systems, the it is a rank choice, or approval voting or something. But with STV what it is saying in this case is someone who a few people definitely want should probably win over someone that a few people kinda want. 50.130.133.249 05:35, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

It's still a considerable improvement on the system where it's possible to win with a significant minority. Armondikov 10:10, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm confused by your statement, Armondikov. Are you saying STV is s system in which it's not possible for someone to win with a significant minority? Last election you would win with 7 votes, out of a community of hundreds. And considering most of us probably have more than one enfranchised account (probably 3 or more for many, actually), someone can give themselves about half the votes they need to win themselves. In fact, I'm not even sure it's specifically disallowed to do so. I think STV is great for some things, but I'm not sure it's the best system for us. Sometime in the next 6 months I'd like to discuss it as a community. This is one thing we haven't really have any say in thus far. Turpis 11:29, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

How it's implemented when you have multiple seats is problematic, because some systems say to "proportionally" redistribute remaining votes, and that's different from pure IRV. However, if you did straight up simple-majority FPTP, with 20 candidates (rounded off for convenience), then the theoretical minimum you need to win is 5% of the vote (100% divided by 20 candidates). You just need to have a wide-ish spread of opposition. I.e., the "split left" in the UK enables us to elect a conservative Tory govenment even when 64% of the electorate voted for a far more liberal party. Armondikov 11:52, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Voxhumana, thanks for the info about the voting system. I can say that I definitely understand it much better now. I really didn't understand the importance of who I ranked first. The only thing that I don't understand is why RW has this voting system. I would rather vote for several candidates that I have about the same confidence in, than only have my vote for one person have so much weight. Refugee 11:15, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Turpis, why did you put your comment above mine? I don't understand why people do this. It makes my comment look out of context. If you are posting after someone else, why stick your remarks above theirs? *grumble* taking back my vote for you... and can't you please do something about your red name? Make a User page already! :p Refugee 11:46, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I put my comment after Armond's because that's who I was responding to. In this case I guess it isn't terribly important, but responding to a comment when there are several other unrelated comments in between makes it hard to follow. Kind of like liquid threads, I guess. Their layout in matters like this is the only thing I like about them. And no edit conflicts. Hmmmm, maybe I don't dislike LTs as much as I thought. Why do I hate them so? Anyway, sorry I irked you, but it looks like you'll just have to learn to deal with these minor irritations in life. Oh, I did bluenate my user name for you. Hope that makes up for my egregious faux pas above. Turpis 12:07, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Wha..the.. I seriously don't remember leaving the above comment. It was made at like 4am my time - either I did it in my sleep or someone else logged into my account again. Apologies for the cranky tone D.Turpis - so unlike me that I even doubt it was. Nice of you to take the "red" out of your name though. :-) Refugee 17:08, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

What our "gut" tells us is the most "fair" or most "accurate" way to do something is very often very wrong. Approval voting systems like you mention are rife with so many problems STV like systems emerged as a way to address them. 50.130.133.249 16:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest that the STV is not the best system. Why? It is designed to produce a one winner. A winner - not a group result. (Hey, that's my understanding - I could be wrong.

I would suggest a better system (whose name I forget) is this: Everybody votes for as many or as few people as they like. The top seven people "win". It's completely transparent, can be understood by anybody with no complicated maths and should result in the most wanted candidates winning.--False Flag 18:28, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

STV is designed for multi-winner elections more so than single winner, STV was made in response to the problems inherent in approval voting systems like you describe above. 50.130.133.249 18:37, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

How, exactly, is it superior to the system I have suggested?--False Flag 18:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not superior or inferior; just different. The question is which is most appropriate to RW. As has been pointed out, STV often favours polarising candidates who get #1 votes from a few devotees and low votes or no votes from many others. Your suggested system would have the opposite effect, favouring the "middle rankers" as somebody called them: candidates who most people would include in their votes, but might not rank too highly if a ranking system is used. Weaselicious ^{Bite Me} 19:12, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why that would be a problem. We don't really need to "rank" candidates. The question is not "is a better than b" but "do I want a to be a mod?".--False Flag 18:07, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Problems include several orders of magnitude easier to manipulate and use "strategic voting" procedures, a significantly higher chance that the Condorcet winner will not get elected, and a much greater range of indeterminacy (where no winner can be selected). 50.130.133.249 19:17, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

The advantages are that everybody would understand it easily and it would not be the subject of endless reinterpretation.--False Flag 18:19, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

This discussion subsection should be ported to RW proper though, that's the best place to have it. 50.130.133.249 19:23, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

When the new election is completed, and the results are known, then I'll also attempt to provide an analysis of "what the results would have been under a different voting system". At least that will provide a firm basis for discussion about the merits of STV vs other systems. For the record I only started this discussion to raise awareness of how STV works, not to criticize it. I won't have any agenda in doing my analysis other than personal curiosity, and I'll also note that the analysis could easily result in people concluding that STV remains the best option, given the competing factors of transparency, fairness, etc.

Also just to make an observation. I've seen a few comments both here and at RW referring to the "hundreds of voters in the community". That may be true but in the last election only 49 (or possibly 50) ballots were actually cast. The number of votes needed to get elected is then determined by the Droop quota, and for Jan 2012 the quota was 7. Voxhumana 03:24, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

If we all vote under STV rules, and you then show what would happen under a different system, of course things will be different. But I'm not sure what that would tell us or how it would help - wouldn't it just produce results similar to Trent's original muckup? Tobul Oltarolin 03:48, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

It's nothing more than a potential basis for discussion (and not even guaranteed to be that). I can't say if it will produce similar results to the mockup until its done. The entire exercise may end up being worthless, but I'm the only person who stands to lose anything in that case, and I'm not particularly concerned. On the other hand, it may help the community have more certainty about how voting is/should be done, in which case it will be worthwhile. Although if it really bothers you so much (as per your "nonsense" claim in the edit summary, I'll gladly shelve the idea. I'm reasonably good at this stuff so I thought it might be helpful. Voxhumana 05:26, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

"Mockup"? I said "muckup." Tobul Oltarolin 05:41, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Votes are being cast under a STV system by voters who (probably mostly) understand the gist of how STV works. Analysing the results according to any other system will be pretty inconclusive since voters wouldn't behave the same way under a different voting system. Vox, you said that you voted for all 21 candidates. I assume you wouldn't do so under False Flag's proposed system (vote for as many candidates as you like) since it would effectively be a wasted vote. Weaselicious ^{Bite Me} 06:12, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. Tobul Oltarolin 06:17, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

No dramas, I'll shelve the idea. Voxhumana 06:25, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd still be curious, though it is true that they wouldn't necessarily reflect a turnout under a different system. If nothing else, a chart like the one you did for the last election would be interesting to see. Turpis 19:00, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. Don't be afraid of drama, Vox - this is RationalWiki, where drama is like our cosmic background radiation. Liveware Problem 23:56, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Except the big bang was only last year, and it's still powerful enough to be annoying. Tobul Oltarolin 00:09, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Election results party!

Just getting it in before the results actually come out. Polls are now closed, though. Liveware Problem 02:16, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I have a bottle and cake. Ty^talk 02:19, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

In true CNN style I have a 3D hologram of RW and a panel of sixteen pundits squeezed onto my kitchen table. Anderson Cooper and Wolf Blitzer are pacing about and John King is drawing cocks on his magic screen. Liveware Problem 02:24, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll provide the abuse! Ace McWicked 02:29, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I gotta tell ya, the mood at Turpis Headquarters is one of uncertainty and anxiety. No one has any idea how this will break. The exit polling has been very ambiguous, mostly because the only exit poll we have so far is a series of non-sequiturs and in jokes. The entire staff, both professional and volunteer, are quite literally on the edge of their seats. It's shaping up to be quite a night. Turpis 02:46, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

... oh fuck all kinds of duck. Ty^talk 02:50, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

VICTORY! My regime will engage in a brutal campaign of taunting, abuse and generally pushing people around, making myself feel big. Ace McWicked 02:52, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

This is a sour victory, friends. Foul play was afoot. Liveware Problem 02:54, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Ever mindful of the Florida fiasco in 2000, the Turpis camp is waiting for final certification before cracking open the champagne. Well, scotch; we don't really drink champagne here at Turpis HQ. Turpis 03:30, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Do you want to come over to my HQ for drinks, drugs and venereal disease? Ace McWicked 03:35, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Thought you'd never ask... Turpis 03:56, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Those are some interesting results. Bring on the HCM! Now, where's my glass? Tobul Oltarolin 04:14, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

So, how did everyone do in their predictions? Mine were pretty good, although I was way off on Nutty. I think Ace got a lot of his support this time. Weaseloid didn't do as well, either, though he at least made alternate. Turpis 04:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I did pretty well. Reckless Noise Symphony and Blue were a surprise, I'll admit, and the lack of support for Human. Liveware Problem 04:24, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong...

In other words, I'm plesently surprised. Tobul Oltarolin 04:32, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Actual results

If anyone cares, here are the results from most votes to least (as far as I can tell), so you can compare with your predictions:

1. AD
2. Blue
3. Ace
4. Genghis
5. Reckless Noise
6. Turpis
7. Godot
8. Armondikov
9. Weaseloid
10. Mikal
11. Nutty
12. Human
13. Sterile
14. Sophie
15. ListenerX
16. Stabby
17. Foxhole Atheist
18. Andy
19. Dumpling
20. LArron
21. Kels

There you go. No one cares, I suppose, do they. Turpis 04:31, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

The beauty pageant results are on my RW talk page now. For the record, Blue is the winner. Voxhumana 04:42, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

When was there a pageant? Ty^talk 04:49, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Some cryptically referred to it as "mod elections". Voxhumana 04:54, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, those. Yes, it is easy to get them mixed up. Ty^talk 04:57, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I hear Ace did well in the swimsuit and bathrobe rounds. Armondikov 09:26, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Electoral fraud

It struck me that six out of the seven mods kept their seats. This makes me even more skeptical that the "ZOMG 10% SOCKS" made much of a difference. Liveware Problem 20:25, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

And someone said there was no incumbent advantage. Of course, it is hard to tell if the socks made a difference. It's entirely possible they were active in the last election as well, so perhaps they actually explain why the results are so consistent? Turpis 22:37, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

LOL It strikes me that you don't even know who they were voting for or what agenda they might have been trying to advance. But it's nice to know that you don't care as long as you like the result. Nutty Roux 23:19, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not that I don't care, Nutty, but just as we should be skeptical that there wasn't any results-swinging fraud with so many sock votes cast, we should also be skeptical that there was any results-swinging fraud as the results were very similar between this election and the last. Queen Iceabella 00:02, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't really know what all this is about, but I will note that even if 10% of the voters are sockpuppets, that isn't enough to get someone elected on their own (unless maybe they all worked in cohesion, which is extremely unlikely). Yeah, they can swing an election to someone who really shouldn't win, but whoever they aid still needs a few significantly highly ranked votes from legit voters. So we're a far cry from having Jpatt elected to the board. Of course, given some strong determination by someone bent of creating havoc, that could change in the future. Turpis 00:18, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it's very apparent that they could have made a difference. The number of #1 votes for Dick Turpis and Waiting for Godot was 3 and 2 votes. It doesn't take much of an imagination that one sock voting could take someone from 2 votes to 4 and have enough residual votes do get elected, especially if there are 7 socks. Not hard to imagine at all. Sterile 16:34, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

My point was that the winners would still need a fair amount of highly ranked legit votes. Something joke candidates and trolls aren't likely to have. I've stated all along a few socks could change the outcome considerably, but not in favor of someone with zero real support. Turpis 18:41, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

They could have made a difference, if they'd all voted the same way. Rennie McGreet 17:43, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Misfire!

Apparently, Armondikov and Weaseloid were really elected instead of Reckless Noise Symphony and DickTurpis, with Human and RNS as alternates. At least, if Nx's calculations are correct and he's reading them right. Liveware Problem 23:02, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

There are different ways of apportioning the remaining votes. I suspect Nx did it different than Trent. Interesting that someone who hasn't been around for a while is all of a sudden so invested. Sterile 12:57, 9 July 2012 (UTC)