RationalWiki:Moderator elections/Campaigning/Archive3

Ace McWicked
We all know there is something wrong with this wiki when trolls and users like brx can serve as a trusted members, protected on high, but our oldest and most respected editors flee the site. They made this wiki strong once, they can make it strong again. I'm Rick Perry Ace McWicked, and I approve of this message.
 * Are you tired of wondering what the mods do? Feel like a mod needs to be removed from office but frustrated knowing that can't be done? A vote for Ace is a vote introduce new guidelines on mod conduct and authority. AceVote Ace for Mod! 20:24, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I pledge to not use any user rights exclusively allotted to the moderator user group (except in emergencies) until a community vote has sanctioned an official moderator remit and conduct policy. AceVote Ace for Mod! 21:01, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

AceVote Ace for Mod! 21:20, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Runs a classy campaign. Lots of pictures.  steriletalk 22:55, 18 December 2011 (UTC)



Π
I am not promising to be a great moderator, but I will not be a bad one. When there are nine positions to be filled it is to easy for a cowboy, bully, borderline-troll, or general asshole to get a position and make the place hell. Just think of me as one of those useless representatives or parliamentarians who just show up to vote and sit on a few committees, but you generally don't notice them. -  π     20:33, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Just think of me as one of those useless representatives or parliamentarians who just show up to vote and sit on a few committees, but you generally don't notice them. like Barack Obama. Or Kevin Rudd. AceVote Ace for Mod! 22:09, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Kevin Rudd has moved overseas now, no where in particular, just away. -  π    silverbrain.png 23:50, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, you aren't so bad. Or maybe I had you confused with somebody else when I nominated you...  You wouldn't happen to be a great civil rights leader and a pacifist, would you?  Have you ever dreamed?--  22:06, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It is interesting you ask that, because I dream surprisingly little. At least what I remember. If have a dream once a month that is frequent for me. -  π    silverbrain.png 11:18, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Has an irrational handle. Not that irrational, but an irrational number. No really, great guy. 01:49, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Blue
I will continue to exercise moderator prerogatives in a cluocratic and minimalist manner. I will continue to avoid instigating conflict.

I pledge to not use any user rights exclusively allotted to the moderator user group (except in emergencies) until a community vote has sanctioned an official moderator remit and conduct policy.

Will any others join me in this pledge? 20:58, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * No, not because there is anything wrong with the idea, I just hate those phoney election pledge things, especially when candidates make a big show about signing them. They aren't worth shit, toilet paper is more valuable. -  π    silverbrain.png 21:01, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll join because i think it is sorely needed. There is no defined mod policy and appeals to the mods end with "what do you want us to do?". They either can do things or can't. AceVote Ace for Mod! 21:03, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

All hail Blue! Osaka Sun (talk) 02:27, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Waiting for Godot
You can go through an entire play and not know what exactly is being waited for... frankly, that suits this place well. I care a lot about Rational Wiki, because it's a great resource for people who are arguing with idiots fundamentalists, denialists, and political extremists. And the quality of what we put out there, matters to me. The behind the scenes childish crap, not so much. I think a mod's main job is not to get involved in the day to day silliness, or the mod becomes part of the game itself. A mod should be here for real issues like endless edit wars, difference of opinions on topics and articles, not who blocked whom, and what someone said on someone else's page. I'm not a mommy, and if kids can't play together, that's their problem.

But I want a good wiki. And when people can't figure out good resolutions to edit wars; or when someone really wants to push agendas the rest of the wiki disagrees with, then I think it's time for the mods to step in and help. Unless of course I'm one of the people in the edit wars. I would never, will never use any mod powers for evil. ;-) Even though everything I say is *clearly* the right point of view.

I take this place seriously. I don't take the game playing seriously. If you want someone to step in during behind the scenes personality fights - don't vote for me. I won't do it. If you want someone who will step in on any issues about articles and how we present ourselves to the world, I'm your gal.

I'm waiting... always waiting... Godot  I live in the Infinite monkey cage 21:04, 14 December 2011 (UTC)  (edit con.  I loved what Blue said about the not using power till the group says so.  I'm stealing that from her, but she said it first!)  Fourth edit conflict. i'm running on the "I hate edit conflicts campaign. j/k)
 * Unfortunately, the behind the scenes childish crap affects the rest of the wiki. Some days I think we should just split off that part into a separate wiki where people can do whatever the fuck they want, and keep the drama off RW proper. -- Nx  / talk 21:11, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "I'm not a mommy, and if kids can't play together, that's their problem." [[File:goodpost.gif]] I will second that, but change "mommy" to "daddy," "paps," or what have you. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:14, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Doesn't have to be, Nx. You choose what you focus on.  You say the behind-the-scenes does effect the wiki?  Other than driving editors away, which is a huge problem, I don't see how it effects the wiki.  I've spent the last 3 months trying hard not to notice the feuds, and truly they almost never crack into the main wiki.  When a mod steps in, he or she becomes the story as much as the feuding ones, if only cause there is almost never a right thing to do, and if only cause the actions are not about articles, but personal talk pages, block logs, etc.  [[Image:Pink mowse.png|25px]]Godot   I live in the Infinite monkey cage 21:17, 14 December 2011 (UTC) (edit con)
 * It spills over. It clogs up RC. etc. -- Nx  / talk 21:29, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear here, with "main wiki" you mean articles and talk pages of articles, right? -- 21:31, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep, sorry "articles and talk pages". I'm not worried that RC is clogged up.  one can ignore things - even if it gets clogged up.  I don't even know how anyone can participate in the side-bar stuff, since any act of a mod becomes "taking sides".  If Nx and Ace are at war, and Nx blocks ace, and ace fucks with Nx's page, and then Ty come in to support Nx and Blue supports Ace -- well, yes you have lots and lots of Recent changes.  and?  Not one of them is changing main space.  But if Blue and Ty disagree about the wording of something, and spend hours or days reverting, then I would step in, and say "time to act like grownups and go for a vote".  That to me is crucial.  Spending time on or about the articles and their talk pages.  and not our own petty battles  of which i have my own share (hi brx). [[Image:Pink mowse.png|25px]]Godot   I live in the Infinite monkey cage 22:31, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Waiting for Godot is a complicated play with a character named Lucky who makes a monologue that may be a source for Seven Mary Three's song Lucky. Maybe. Vote for Godot. steriletalk 02:31, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Stabby the Misanthrope
Much as I sometimes fantasize about riding in like a knight in shining armor, solving all conflicts forever, I know that's not how RationalWiki works. Instead, I promise to not be a cowboy or an asshole as a Moderator, and do the best I can to follow the will of the community. That's what the Moderators were created to do, after all: keep cowboys and assholes from undermining what the community decided upon. 21:10, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The community can't decide shit. You can't have a week-long vote every time someone maybe violated the community standards, and even if you do, most people will be biased because someone is their wiki-friend or because they don't like a guy or whatever. The best thing you can do, IMHO, is to have a fair and just set of rules that are agreed upon, and then apply them consistently and equally. -- Nx  / talk 21:36, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * People make fun of us for having ineffective votes. TvTropes does, and ED will too once I get around to rewriting the article.  I say we elect people we can trust and let them go with it (and don't elect your pals, elect people that'll get rid of troublemakers).--  22:10, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * People make fun of us; at least I do, or rather I will when I get around to writing the article. Brxbrx, you're a hoot.  00:01, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * @Nx Point taken, but it's the community that determines those fair and just rules in the first place. The Moderators don't function as the legislative body in a representative democracy.  Rather, they're the enforcers of the law in a direct democracy.   22:43, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

ListenerX

 * This user has been licked by the divine tongue of the dog/god god/dog Lord Bacu! Pending him scratching the itch behind my ears, I will gladly use my arcane canine powers to make him a Mod. Lord Bacu (talk) 16:16, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Genghis Khant
All of the inter-peronsal bickering annoys me. I am what I am; take me or leave me. 00:38, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This user is officially endorsed by the Noise of my Reckless Symphony. 13:27, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

AD
If you thought I was a good mod this past term, vote for me. I think that things have gone pretty well, despite the shrieking hissy fits that have occasionally occurred. There were no serious block wars, no serious edit wars, and no wheel-warring but for a few brief incidents that were immediately stopped. I like to think I was responsible for at least 1/7th of that outcome.-- 02:04, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll vote for you, but please don't get cold feet if none of the other mods are stepping in, like before.-- 02:19, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, things have been really good around here the last six months. 03:20, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Generally, yeah. Especially the past couple of months there's been a remarkable drop in the bitching.-- 08:58, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That's because you've been insidiously manipulating us with your silver tongue, subverting the true nature of the site into a monstrous bureaucracy :-)  At least, according to a certain troll at a certain website.   09:10, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Haha yeah I checked that out. It's weird to be the center of someone's erotic fantasies on this level.-- 09:18, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I still mostly remembered you for the Great Vegetarian Debate, and otherwise considered you a—no offense—minor player in the scheme of things. I didn't even realize you were a mod.  So it was weird to see you held up as the Great Satan.   09:22, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No offense taken - I am a minor player, I think!
 * MC is just obsessed because he and I exchanged a series of emails in which I mocked him so hard that his monitor must have been melting. He tried to retaliate by sending what he considered harmful excerpts of my emails to other people, notably Nutty, to try to make me seem evil.  He failed when I realized what was going on, and explained.  And because MC hates being humiliated in our every interaction, and hates even more being exposed for having no scruples about betraying private correspondence, he has fixated on me as a central figure.  He's just not very smart, so it's the kind of thing to chuckle at and ignore, I think.-- 09:38, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If you come here for the bitching, you'll see bitching. If you don't come here for the bitching, you'll not see it. It'll pass you by completely. But also the users involved will pass you by completely. Look at the chart - the ones you might consider minor are actually very active, they're just not active in the realm of talkpage slagging matches. Scarlet A.pngtheist 17:03, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Human
Are you serious? My platform is "if you liked the first three years of RW and what we built together, vote for me." If you preferred the driving off of many long-time editors, and the rule-making and -enforcing tendencies of the last six months to a year, see you on the flipside, kids. Love you all, though. 03:28, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It is highly regrettable that we lost so many people in these dust-ups, but if I recall correctly we only actually banned two people, only one of whom was a long-time (if sporadic) editor. 04:37, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * People a lot of us respect and miss moved on. Some lost interest; it's in the nature of a site like this to have some turnover. These are people we regret losing but that's not what Human's talking about. Others, some of whom were also central to the health of the community, didn't want to be around such a poisonous editing environment or all the conflict we've had for the last 6 months. I know that's been on a lot of our minds for a long time now. Many of us edit less because we're sick to death of seeing or being on the receiving end of nasty bullshit from just a few people whose sole interests seem to be causing trouble and getting attention interjecting themselves everywhere and ruffling no shortage of feathers wherever they go. I have no idea whether the community will survive, but I do know that Human cares deeply about it because it's what we all know works when it comes to making a good RationalWiki. I'll stop speaking for him now. 04:56, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * My hope is now that two prolific producers of such "nasty bullshit" have been blocked and things have settled down, the dead might see their way clear to coming to life again. 05:19, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * SR was only intermittently disruptive. He was funny as shit otherwise. I have mixed feelings about Marcus. I'm talking about 2 more who are very active, one of which recently joined the bandwagon. I'm really sorry about that because it's difficult to enjoy his good humor anymore. 05:26, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You're not talking about me, are you? :-(   06:46, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Regardless of who he is talking about, I think that some editors have been casting altogether too much blame for the recent ruckus on outsiders and newcomers. One argument that kept cropping up in the debates over the banning of MarcusCicero was that a large part of the disruption he instigated was not due to his posts, but to the responses that long-standing editors made to them. 06:55, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for saying that. I wasn't all that far away from developing a persecution complex. -- 11:06, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * ... which would be unusual for someone who's recently made a trade out of attacking editors he had no previous contact with after apparently being drawn to conflict for it's own sake. 14:46, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Which is not what I was talking about. Persecuted as a newbie under the constant suspicion of just trolling everyone. Like, you know, every single new RW editor that comes in and is by the first time he disagrees with the overall consesus and has the audacity to voice these opinions is called a troll. Besides it is that the old guard has been moaning since May that teh noobs are ruining the wiki. That's what I meant. If I give you or anybody else a verbal middle finger, what follows is of course not persecution but a simple response. -- 15:39, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

MCWiki not working out for you, human? -- Nx  / talk 07:04, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow, you are really not a very nice person. AceVote Ace for Mod! 07:09, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I used to be a nice person, but this website isn't for nice people. Thanks to Human, in part. -- Nx  / talk 07:37, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Nx used to be a nice person until some online persona changed him. Wow dude, you are in desperate need. Turn your fucking computer off. AceVote Ace for Mod! 07:53, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I was talking about my persona on RW. -- Nx  / talk 07:56, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * So your a dick online because of Human but not really in real life? That's even worse. AceVote Ace for Mod! 08:01, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Your personality is so shallow that a small inconvenient online personality changes your whole manner? AceVote Ace for Mod! 08:03, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I see, well at least I'm not a total dickhead like you in real life. -- Nx  / talk 08:13, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Whatever man. Still fucking weird - "Nice guy, nice guy, nice.... get online ...Human! Bah!". Turn the computer off Nx. AceVote Ace for Mod! 08:17, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * And Human? Really? Do you have nothing else in life that the sum total of things that make you not a nice guy is an internet person? AceVote Ace for Mod! 08:18, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I just treat him the same way he treats others. -- Nx  / talk 08:23, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That is sad dude. I had no idea you were so bereft of real life experience that a) you are carrying around such luggage and b) it destroys you personality to such an extant that it changes how you might act otherwise. AceVote Ace for Mod! 08:27, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course the Wiki is not for nice people, seeing as how it started out as a base for launching invective at Conservapedia and expanded into a base for launching invective at other groups. 07:50, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, we know who's not getting re-elected. Osaka Sun (talk) 07:34, 15 December 2011 (UTC) by definit
 * Nutty Roux? :-)  I mean, for some reason he hasn't accepted yet, so...   07:36, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I meant the other person whose name starts with an N. Osaka Sun (talk) 08:01, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Nebuchadnezzar?  08:07, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Or perhaps Newton, who also sometimes references things by initial letter. 08:11, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Am I that subtle? Who just started this fight a couple of posts above?  Jeez people. Osaka Sun (talk) 08:22, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Am I too subtle? I was being deliberately dense earlier.  I knew exactly who you meant all along:  Norseman.  It's Norseman, right?  :-)   09:24, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Osaka Sun (talk) 09:52, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Bah.  09:59, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Now, you're thinking of RationalWiki as Human and PalMD. I don't. I think that's old RationalWiki. If you look at the entire RationalWiki today, the center of gravity is shifting to the n00bs. And there are a lot of new members. And if you just take the list of all the members of RationalWiki and all of those who have been invited in recently -- what is it? Twenty-six, something like that? -- you're right. Human has been a problem, and PalMD has been a problem. -  π     11:35, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm talking about Human's response not the effect of his decreased editing. PalMD was gone before I ever got here. The people I'm really talking about, like I said, are those who left in the last 6 months. I'm thinking of Cracker, DogP, Pink, etc. Even GK is less active. In any event, the gravity shifted toward this place being very nasty at times with all this persistent sniping and things got worse, not better, with mods and older editors leaving. @RA I'm not sure I'm interested in the job. There are a variety of what I view to be unsupportable and harmful ideas out there of what mods are and what they should do. They indicate to me that the community is even more factionalized than it was when we started down this path. I'm not convinced moderators could ever fix things under the current job description without any principled consensus on what they're even supposed to do. Being a small voice in favor of greater circumspection, greater prudence, and extremely limited moderator power isn't all it's cracked up to be (I would be very interested in hearing how the people who elected me with huge support would to see things go, but that constituency appears to look more like a silent majority). We've had strong resistance to a few instances of non-paper-pushing moderation involving regular editors, which of course failed. A recent example is my conclusion that removing Nx's rights and cooping him would have been immediately undone and as is typical with his misbehavior, I would have ended up on trial. People voted in a guy who continues to abuse every position of trust he's held and the squabbling about it turns into a absurd sideshow in which nobody demands he account for himself. Rational. Wiki. So it strikes me that the mod role is bound to be a failure because the loudmouths lack the political will to let the system work as conceived and without ever more power flowing to mods as they get frustrated. At the end of the day, I fear the community lacks the political will to make real demands of the ungovernable and that all of these campaign speeches and promises are hooey to the voters and even bigger hooey to the biggest troublemakers. I might just focus on the RW Foundation (if I can even get elected) and wait things out hoping Trent comes up with a better idea.  14:41, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * A recent example is my conclusion that removing Nx's rights and cooping him would have been immediately undone and as is typical with his misbehavior, I would have ended up on trial. You mean like when I removed Ace's and Bbmaj's rights? -- Nx  / talk 15:12, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Look, Nx. This is your standard rhetorical strategy. I'm not biting. If you've got anything to say about your own behavior, that's great. 15:20, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

MCWiki not working out for you, human? Maybe this statement's been edited since, but I don't get why it would have caused any furor. -- 14:05, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well said on the long paragraph, Nutty. steriletalk 12:53, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey Human, what's your policy position on the role of the moderators when it comes to articles that compare longstanding RW members to mass murderers and sex criminals?
Like this one? Should they play the wiki-gnome and edit those articles into shape, or should they make a point and say "wow, that's not cool?" Just curious. P-Foster 14:12, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If I were nominated moderator, I'd say that such things are completely and totally unacceptable. Alas, I am not, so I will not voice my opinion. 14:25, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I would have nominated you, I really considered it when I nominated a bunch of people, but you've treated me rather poorly. I'm sure someone else will jump in.--  14:30, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No matter, I don't want to be nominated anyways. And what I really have to say on this topic might be controversial. 14:31, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Come on brochacho. "The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour is often compared to the betrayl of MarcusCicero by Foster the Cruel." "Foster the Cruel enjoys intimidating people and turning them into the undead." "Saddam Hussein... Or Foster the Cruel?" That junk about Psy being a racist South African (that's probably the most sensitive thing you could accuse a white man of conscience in South Africa of). It's all shitty parody meant to get your goat. It did. Most of what he does is parody. Does he really think " [i] t remains to be seen what the net outcome of this scenario will be, or whether he will really push for the complete elimination of Human in shadowy Oligarchy meetings." This stuff is so over the top I can't believe you're letting it get to you after he was banned from the wiki. 16:41, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * He also compared Foster to Joseph Fritzl, the man who locked his daughter in his basement and raped her for years. She had to raise his incestuous issue in the basement, too.  That left them crippled for life as they were kept in a confined space with little light and food growing up.--  16:47, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps so, but that probably isn't Human's fault. 20:05, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed, Human hadn't made an edit to BurgerWiki in a while before that comparison was made, and hasn't edited it since that comparison was made. Thus, for now at least, it is not fair to use that daughter rapist one against him. 14:24, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * When would it ever have been fair? If you were a fundamentalist Christian but liked copyediting as you poked around exploring RationalWiki's apologetics and skepticism articles, would it be alright to saddle you with editorial responsibility for the whole site, but especially our antitheism stuff and whatever else would gravely offend your coreligionists? No. He didn't write that stuff at Hamburger University. As far as I can tell he called Trent lazy. You can ask Trent if he'd agree, but it's hardly seditious. 03:21, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

A stand-up guy with edit rights on the site would have vaped that shit long ago. P-Foster 05:17, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Pfffft, what over blown nonsense. MCWiki is an abject failure and no one would pretend any different, least of all Human. AceAce For Mod! 05:20, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I feel you and you know it (Mmmmm nice). It sucks having someone lie and say shitty stuff about you. Believe me I know. *nudge Brxbrx* We'd throw hopeless turds like Brxbrx to the curb if we had a mechanism for it, but we don't and nobody really cares that much so we mostly ignore them until they flare up like a herpes outbreak. But why would we ignore or barely tolerate a louse like Brxbrx who says and does shitty disruptive stuff to a bunch of people all the time, but hold grudges against and bear ill will toward old friends over stuff they didn't write and aren't responsible for? That's fucked up. You're doing that and yet you apparently have no idea how Human feels about you, let alone RW. You should ask him. Think of someone you have decent regard for who has some radically different worldview. Let's pick Bradley (Lowkey) from aSK. He's something like the religious opposite of your average RW editor who finds much of the anti-creationist and anti-religious stuff on this site repulsive. Some of us feel the same way or even more strongly (lol) about some of Philip's horseshit nonsense. Anyone who knows Bradley thinks he's at least a stand up guy. He's even done us some real good by making helpful suggestions at important times. Would you expect him to come over here and start deleting stuff because it offends Philip? No. At this point I bet every one of us who's edited at aSK has taken his lumps for a lot less than you just said you expected of Human. Your beef is with the author of that Foster the Cruel junk, not someone who copyedited a book on the next shelf over. 06:22, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If we're holding Human responsible for other people's opinions that he copyedits, then let's remember that he belives teen pregnancies are caused by atheism and Hollywood values, and that the homosexual lifestyle involves extreme selfishness and indolence. Somebody stop this monster!  12:04, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but Human is a crat at McWiki. A man with integrity would've deleted the awful hit piece on Susan; instead it was MC who deleted it. MC may play a troll on the internet for his amusement, but at least he has some integrity. -- Nx  / talk 12:51, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It wasn't necessarily MC in person who deleted it. Read your talk page.  Several RW regulars (including moderator candidates) have admitted to being involved, so why is it only Human, who barely wrote anything there, being persecuted for what the site says?  Also, we're voting for moderators at RationalWiki.  There is no obligation to moderate or not moderate at other sites.   13:50, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Then who was it? His brother? While I don't condone what Stabby and Ty did on McWiki, at least they were just parodists and not serious about that site being a worthwhile alternative to RWW. --  Nx  / talk 14:02, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow Nx, that's really low. You know Huw has been open about missing Susan after she died. Just to be clear, you're holding him responsible for an article he didn't write while giving identically situated others an arbitrary pass. I can only conclude that the double standard arises from your hatred of him rather than any good reason. Go after whoever wrote the article about Susan, not someone still mourning her death, you creep. You're not winning anything here, Nx. This whole section is a negative campaign ad against you. Go take a nap. 15:49, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You know Huw has been open about missing Susan after she died. No, I don't know that. All I can see is that Human was too busy being Marcus's bitch to be able to defend Susan. -- Nx  / talk 22:04, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow. 22:28, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Human didn't complain. He didn't even raise an eyebrow.  How blasé is he that he's willing to let stand such things?--  16:02, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This kind of comment is why I find it difficult to even regard you as human anymore, brx. I can forgive the others saying some of these things because it's in the context of them expressing their own personal anger to and at Huw as part of a long term state of affairs. As is your pattern on RW, you came over here out of the blue as a total stranger to obviously personal beefs between Foster/Nx and Human to pile on and keep the trouble stirred up, this time by interjecting a character attack on this man over the death of his friend. Blasé about a friend's death! Because Brxbrx is incapable of resisting the urge to take a giant shit on his enemies regardless of the circumstances? Is nothing too low for you? My stomach sunk when I read your repulsive post. I would slap your face for speaking these words in my presence.
 * Next time you're working on the "Surviving a nigger attack" section of ED's "Nigger" article by adding that the young white virgins "niggers" get drunk so they can "move in for the kill" are also overweight "hambeasts", you might add "credibility," "decency," and "humanity" to the growing list of desirable character traits you lack and ask yourself how your online life is working out for you. 19:04, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This whole thing is a sham. Nx is piling on Human out of sheer hate alone, ignoring all other guilty parties. And Brx, who wasn't even acquainted with Susan in any way (I wish she were here now though, she'd rip through Brx), is complaining about Human's taste at one wiki while writing about niggars at another. What a cluster-fuck of nonsense. AceAce For Mod! 19:10, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone else get the feeling this whole discussion should be elsewhere? DickTurpis (talk) 19:18, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm torn. I was going to move it but it does have some bearing on the candidates insofar as several of them are openly campaigning against themselves here. But do what you think is right. I'd support you moving it to a subpage in my user talkspace if you want. I'm sure Human doesn't want this filth on his talkpage. 19:28, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Trolltop it? 19:44, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Naa, only one person was actually trolling. That's why the template is inflammatory. But your judgment is the right one. I'll collapse it with the regular collapse template in a few hours and we can overlook whoever has a legit right of reply posting in the thread (within reason) after it's closed. 20:12, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you guys realize that Human explores every CP-RW-etc. related wiki there is? And how a purity test is authoritarian? It's this shit that drives people like me away from RW. steriletalk 21:00, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep it here, untouched. It is a very illuminating record of the attitudes of some of the people who are candidates for Mod.  DamoHi 22:11, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

See here - it still makes me cry to read this. I miss that awesome woman so much. 02:44, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it is revolting of Nx to dredge up the memory of a woman we all loved in order to attack Human. Really quite vile. AceAce For Mod! 02:48, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

PsyGremlin
Ok, lets make this simple. Everybody bitches that the moderators are useless. That is mostly due to the fact that any major decision they make needs to be voted on by the whole community. Which is, quite frankly, a load of bullshit.

The community elects the moderators to take charge when the pawpaw hits the fan. Therefore, they should be able to decide on and execute a plan of action to resolve a situation by themselves. No more votes by the community, no more endless bitching and moaning. Either the moderators have authority to act, or they don't. And if it's the latter, then this whole process is a farce. A vote for me is the first step to giving the moderators teeth. And getting Z$10 in your pocket. -- PsyGremlin  11:07, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I like what I'm hearing, but are you going to try and ban me? Because you seem to be part of the crowd that thinks I'm an insidious troll.--  14:10, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "The ancient Prouerbe will be well effected, A Staffe is quickly found to beat a Dogge." (Henry VI, Part Two)-- 01:41, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Only if your insidious trolling reached MC-esque proportions... -- PsyGremlin  14:16, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Nobody wants to ban you. Everyone wants you to start acting like a human being. What we do if you continue refusing to do so is up in the air. 16:29, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * &#42;chimes in&#42;...this is the only person who is on my friends list for feysbujk. 01:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Dick Turpis
I will be running on the "Can't We All Just Get Along" ticket. Sadly, the answer to this question is no, we can't, or we wouldn't have moderators to begin with. So be it. I won't pretend that as I moderator I will end the petty squabbles and bullshit. But I won't start any. I'm not a huge supporter of tons of rules (is anyone?) nor anarchy either. I do want to make sure that whatever the community decides is applied consistently. DickTurpis (talk) 14:26, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This user is officially endorsed by the loud, obnoxious sounds of the Reckless Noise Symphony. 14:28, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Let us hope this one endorsement can negate all the other endorsements I've received: RobSmith, Maratrean, Brxbrx...still awaiting word from Charles Manson... DickTurpis (talk) 04:14, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "This candidate officially endorsed by TK's ghost..."  06:49, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Reckless Noise Symphony
I believe in the principle that everyone should be held to similar standards of conduct on this Wiki. To that end, I do not think RationalWiki is a troll haven, but I also refuse to label people like Brxbrx and Maratrean as trolls. Yes, some users can be a pain. And, yes, I myself am guilty just as anyone else is of losing my cool with people on this site who get on my nerves. But I don't think we should just outright ban people who we view as "different" or who are a bit odd. That being said, I also do believe that users who come here with the sole intention of beating up on people have the right to fuck off and be banned. Note: this doesn't mean arguements and personality conflicts don't happen. People will disagree and others won't get along ever. It's in these cases where the true power of being a moderating voice on this Wiki counts, and anyone who runs as a mod and doesn't realize this is unfit for the position.

To that end, I have no problem with all the antics that go on here. Hell, I participated in my share of BS. I don't want to see this become the "serious business Wiki," nor do I want serious business to be disrupted. I think this Wiki thrives with a bit of each. 14:53, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * users who come here with the sole intention of beating up on people Would you mind telling us who you have in mind?-- 15:17, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Ooops, that was kind of a scatter-brained moment. Let me re-phrase it. Go ahead and re-read it again 15:23, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think brx was asking for names… -- 15:27, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * (EC) On your original question, I think people like MarcusCicero or Fall down or TK.... you know, the "usual examples," are the sorts of people I have in mind. Mmind you I also think that, in the cases of people who are useful but have started insulting everyone, a good apology is more than enough and if they do apologize a block is not warranted. And in such cases, short-term blocks are warranted. Only the most serious infractions (threats, outing personal information, etc.) require long-term blocks. 15:28, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Runz a fun block war with made up godz, thereby mocking a crazy one. Awesome.  steriletalk 23:03, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Though I hate to say it, Goonie, I'm very hesitant to vote for you if you're going to step down upon being re-elected to the board. I fully expect you to be re-elected, so I see such resignation as very likely, and resignations from the moderator post have been the bane of the position from the beginning; I'm not anxious to see many more. I do admire your commitment to do so, as I feel that no single person should hold too many positions of power on the site (I don't like mods to be board members or techs, though that's merely a personal preference, and not something I think should be an enforceable rule). Anyway, thought I'd lay my cards on the table there, as I do appreciate your endorsement (all my others so far have been less than exemplary. Where is Rob, anyway?). DickTurpis (talk) 02:16, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Nothing wrong with that, Dick. The whole reason I didn't want to be nominated in the first place was because of my intention to re-run for the position of Trustee. Unfortunately, I was nominated, and I didn't want to disappoint those who thought I'd make a good moderator, so I laid out the truth so people could see for themselves the #1 reason that I hesitated to run as a Mod. And, yes, the reason I don't want to be a Mod and a Trustee is because I've seen how being a Mod (a position which is heavily political on the Wiki) interferes with peoples' confidence in you as a Trustee (a much more powerful position, but much less political in nature) and I don't think the residual effects are anything I'd want to put up with. On top of that, I share your ethic Dick that I don't want that much power or responsibility on the Wiki, as I'm of the firm opinion that too much power is corrupting. 13:04, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Armondikov
As I accepted the nomination, I may as well put something here. I'll not make it too long winded and so just skip straight to what you'd find most useful: I have no qualms with blocking someone for a day if they act like a complete arsehole. I have no qualms in incrementing this block period if they continue to do so afterwards. Questions? theist 15:58, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Would you agree that you share primary responsibility for the breakdown in order that led to the present state of affairs? If not, why not? Why should anyone trust you in any position of power (especially one with which you can set rights bits) after you unilaterally decratted everyone and laughed about it? 16:28, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did that. I did it under a system where there were a lot of rights, but no responsibilities, and where mob rule meant "number of people multiplied by their audacity", and where those user rights were supposed not mean anything. Did I laugh about it? No. Not really. It wasn't a practical joke. Did I do it to prove a point? Yes. Guilty as charged there. Do I intend to do it again? No. Because I don't view this position as entirely meaningless as the crat position supposedly was. Scarlet A.pngnarchist 16:42, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You were a bad person, Armondikov.  You abused your rights and wrecked the wiki community.  I will not be voting for you. You were part of the "new cabal" who destroyed this site.  I assume it is ok to say bad things about people on this page, judging by the garbage that is piled up on my section.  You have poor judgement, exercised it, and did irreparable harm to the site with your antagonistic and egotistic exploit.  I regret ever 'cratting you.  03:49, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Weaseloid
As a moderator, I've tried to exercise a fair hand & a light touch, as per the guidelines, & would continue to do so. I believe that actions taken against individuals by moderators (such as desysoping/sysoprevoke or lengthy blocks) should only be emergency temporary measures to stop a situation getting out of hand, or the result of a community decision. So mods should be more like special constables than magistrates. Community decisions aren't going to be unanimous, but it's still important that the community has input on things like this. Generally, I'm not in favour of users being banned, with very few exceptions. Not a big fan of having fixed rules & punishments either.

The biggest problem currently is the increasing factionalism within the community, partly with differing attitudes to direction & policy, but much of it just down to cliques & grudges & personality clashes. This isn't something that can be resolved simply by more rules or bans. It's hard to see a way out of it, but moderators getting involved in the bitching & flaming & games of tit-for-tat certainly won't help matters & doesn't reflect well on the "moral authority" aspect of the role. So I support voting for mods who are not prone to factionalism & drama, but can step in when needed to moderate a conflict, guide discussion & make reasonable decisions without overstepping their ultimate responsibility to the needs of the community. 21:07, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Very reasonable. Scarlet A.png<font color=#CC0033>theist 21:17, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Reasonable as ever, Weaseloid. Indeed, Weaseloid is so level-headed you could... uh... Help me out here—I need a joke.   22:02, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Use him to balance a wobbly table? (ʞlɐʇ) ɹǝɯɯɐHʍoƆ 22:05, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you, CowHammer. WEASELOID IS SO LEVEL-HEADED YOU COULD BALANCE A WOBBLY TABLE ON HIM. A VOTE FOR WEASELOID IS A VOTE FOR STABLE TABLES!   22:50, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Wait... if a wobbly table becomes level on the Weasel's head, wouldn't that imply that his head is as wobbly as the table, just in opposite parts? Personally, I think he's so level, we should tie a rope round his neck and use him as a plumb line. --<font face="Wild Words"> PsyGremlin  10:58, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That's why I'm not voting for him-- 13:21, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I approve this nominee. Shut the fuck up brxbrx and go away any time soon. 03:51, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your support, Human. 22:59, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * What is a weaseloid? Something weaselesque? Hard to say. But if he doesn't like drama, and he likes community input, that sounds good to me! steriletalk 02:20, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This user is officially endorsed by the Reckless Symphony of Noise. 13:24, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This user has my vote, on condition he shows us his tits. --<font face="Wild Words"> PsyGremlin  15:40, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Vote first, tits later. Thanks for the love, everyone.  16:40, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Maratrean
My platform as moderator is basically the same as it was last time I stood — to try to make this site live up to its name, of being rational. All those who think that such a goal is outside the scope of the moderator position, per last time your objections are duly noted and duly disregarded. 01:00, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hilarious! Rational wiki isn't rational. All hail my made up gods! AceAce For Mod! 01:13, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Rationality is about the journey, not about the destination. Also, you would be more rational if you acknowledged that rather than there being one single uncontested rationality, there are actually multiple competing rationalities, and it is not obvious which one (if any is right). I think such an insight might fittingly be called meta-rationality. 01:21, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * *mrreowww* I votes No to this one. He has made of me and Terror Taba a childs tale instead of a vengeful end-times demi-diety. If he do this me *meoww* what cans he does to you lot. Think bout dat. Me sleepy, nap times now *night taaba* *sccccceeeeaaammmmm* close enough batty. Terror Trinka (talk) 01:37, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * What is Holy Lord Bacu's opinion? Osaka Sun (talk) 01:48, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The former proto-prophet Maratrean, sometimes known as Zarnacy does not have the support of the Divinities. His inability to get even a single person to convert to the Maratrean religion shows that he is totally incompetent and a bit of an ass.  His method of speaking in philosophical babble, questionable ethics and total inability to inspire make him a very poor choice for the position of Moderator.  --Holy Lord Bacu (talk) 03:39, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Worst. Campaign. Ever. -- 01:52, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Still sounds like Rationalwiki isn't rational because they laugh at my beliefs. Dude, if you don't want people to laugh at your silly beliefs you shouldn't have such silly beliefs. AceAce For Mod! 01:57, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Have we ever confirmed Poe yet? Osaka Sun (talk) 01:59, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * A little postmodern for my tastes, Mara, but I'm all for civility, which I'm sure you'll enforce. Even against me, if need be--  02:07, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * How will you make the "site" more rational? Dimm (talk) 02:27, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, firstly I think we need to lead a serious, thoughtful debate on the questions of "What is rationality?", "Is there a single rationality, evident to all, or multiple competing rationalities?", "How can we know which rationality is the right one?", "What are the basic principles of rationality? How do we settle disputes about what those principles are?", "What is the relationship between rationality and truth?", "What is the relationship between rationality and ethics?", etc. 03:07, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This platform is frankly creepy. Maratrean's stated goal is not just unsupported by any reading of Trent's mandate, it's not remotely consonant with it or this site's overall goals. We do not regulate behavior. We rarely even regulate extremely disruptive behavior or Maratrean would have felt the sting. We don't regulate thinking or surely Maratrean would object even more vocally to being on the outside looking in. But no, he's free to espouse whatever silliness he wishes; we are all just as free to disregard it. Finally, aside from Trent, have no official role for someone who wants to "try to make" RW live up to anything in his own vision and moderators wouldn't be them if we did. Moderators are here to put out fires. Not lead us or conduct discussion groups. Of course Maratrean is disregarding objections. 03:21, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Part of any role, whether it be in business or politics or any other sphere of life, is not just to take the parameters of one's role as given, but to help shape and mould the dimensions of the role into the future. Whatever moderators are initially intended to be, the role may evolve over time in many different directions. 03:31, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Just like you were when you were fired from your position as protoprophet, you would make a hopeless Mod. Fortuanately, you won't get more than the vote you give yourself.   Holy Lord Bacu (talk) 03:43, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I just wanted people to see what you have to say about that. Thanks for cooperating. 03:45, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Why do you need mod powers to lead debates? Dimm (talk) 18:27, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Why do you need people to vote for you if we are all the same person? 18:38, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * @Dimm, sometimes its not the power, but rather the position, which counts.
 * @Weaseloid, well yes, whoever you vote for, you are voting for yourself. And whoever you don't vote for, by not voting for them, you are not voting for yourself. So I'd suggest, when you vote for yourself, vote for yourself by voting for me, and when you don't vote for yourself, don't vote for yourself by not voting for someone other than me. 22:31, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That's not a persuasive argument. My question is why should I vote for you?  Your answer is to vote for myself by voting for you, & to not vote for myself also by voting for you.  How does that help either of us?  Why should I vote for you specifically rather than any other manifestation of the non-specific self?  01:25, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Vote for me if you think this site could do a better job of living up to its name. If you think that is a load of malarkey, don't vote for me. 01:28, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

SCREECH. flap flap ENOUGH OF THE (drops rock THUNK) FALSE PROTOPROPHET. SCREECH. NO FORMER flap flap PROTOPROPHETS FOR MOD. flap flap. Guano unload. TERROR TABA (talk) 13:17, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmmmm... Seems to have a lot of supernatural critters following him around, but they seem unsupportive. Not sure that's the best for a mod. steriletalk 01:53, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

New Campaign Slogan: ''The rational voter will vote for the most rational candidate. Vote for the most rational candidate—Maratrean.'' 08:53, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Based on my exchange with you here, I seriously question your judgement to be an effective moderator in circumstances where it matters. In the case of the latter example, I think your not taking the leaking of someone's phone number without their permission seriously (regardless of how publicly available that information may be) and treating it with a "meh" attitude is more than enough reason not to vote for you for moderator. Upholding privacy standards on this Wiki for all members of this Wiki is probably one of, if not, the most fundamental issues I'd expect to be able to trust a moderator to deal with, and that you take the leaking of a troll's alleged name more seriously than the leak of someone's personal phone number (again, it doesn't matter if you can find it with google since they never gave permission to post it on-Wiki) is a severe black-mark on your judgement. 11:35, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Colonel Sanders
My platform is that of minimal involvement. Mods should only be the last line of defense, as that is what the intention seemed to be. No need creating a police state that resembles....oh noes... the wingnut blog! Anyway, accountability, transparency, all that jazz.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 10:58, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hear hear. 13:57, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Touche--Colonel Sanders (talk) 15:08, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That's not how you spell "douche" but thanks anyway. [[image:Winking0001.gif]]  18:35, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Not what I was going for but okay. I probably won't get a single vote, but it'll be fun anyway.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 18:45, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, yes. AceAce For Mod! 22:15, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I know he's not the REAL Colonel Sanders (cue chicken dance), but he must be a colonel nonetheless. steriletalk 01:52, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * But I cook fried chicken, and as mod I will make sure no chicken enters these parts without being fried to a fine crisp. With grease. Loads of it. But not the Travolta kind.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 01:53, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Tolerance
My name goes Before me!--Tolerance (talk) 18:56, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Probably Harmless as Long as he Doesn't Enforce Capitalization. steriletalk 17:58, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Sterile
Mods are not gods. Don't feed trolls, except to play a little bit. Slowly revert. steriletalk 12:57, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This user is officially endorsed by the Reckless Noise Symphony. 14:17, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Sterile is a Great Old One of Azathothianly good judgment, temperance, prudence, and wit. He definitely has his head screwed on perfectly for this job: limited oversight being key. Ditto Genghis, Weas, Godot, Dick (he's a asshole windbag cunt and he's good people), and others I'll add to this list. 14:32, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd just like to point out that in Lovecraft's cosmology Azathoth was an idiot god at the center of chaos. I'm not sure what you meant, but hopefully it wasn't that--  03:27, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If you weren't an ignorant and intellectualy lazy busybody you'd have followed that last thought up and learned that Azathoth is the boundless Great Old One that both (a) resides at the center of the universe and rules lesser gods and (b) gets called the blind idiot god. I couldn't have known choosing which of the two alternatives makes the most sense would be difficult for you. I'm sorry. 14:29, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Le législateur
A wiki Moses on wheels; sent to lead y'all to the Promised Land of Happy, Productive Editing. Dare to believe. --Le législateur (talk) 14:47, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Aren't there some basic eligibility criteria you are missing? They should probably be highlighted more clearly on one or all of these pages.  Anyway, I don't think accounts created for the sole purpose of running for office are allowed to participate.  19:19, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * There are no eligibility criteria to run, just to vote. 19:24, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Damn straight. Deus ex machina ftw. --Le législateur (talk) 21:24, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't know him, but likes French, apparently. steriletalk 01:50, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Meh, I still eat my freedom fries.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 01:55, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * He hasn't done a certain thing with his name on the nominations list to accept his own nomination so he's not officially running yet! 01:57, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Failure to RTFM, not a good sign. -- Nx  / talk 01:58, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * He nominated himself, so I'm willing to read that as accepting the nomination. Doesn't matter, as he won't win. Or if he does, this site deserves everything it gets. DickTurpis (talk) 02:00, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I remember Cretinous incompetent's campaign last election failed dismally, tying Maratrean for last. 02:03, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly. And Cretinous Incompetent had a genuinely awesome name to boot. DickTurpis (talk) 02:19, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Dare to believe, DT, dare to believe. I have a dream! --Le législateur (talk) 02:45, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for remembering me guys. Blue has no idea what the purpose of my candidacy if he thinks it was a dismal failure. I am a light in the darkness who brings hope to the oppressed, clothes the poor, and feeds the hungry. Perhaps I even fed your parking meter and you didn't even notice. I am everywhere. I am everyone. I have a lot of quarters. If I recall correctly, I received as many or more votes than Maratrean. This is a huge success I will endeavor to repeat with respect to whoever you wish to send a message. Let me be the receptacle into which you pour your disappointment and frustration. Raise me up onto your shoulders and take arms, lads! For the Revolution! Cretinous incompetent (talk) 04:35, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Will you buy me a dozen doughnuts? 04:39, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I could really use a doughnut too. 04:52, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Did someone say donughts? I always said my vote could be bought.  Pain au choco would be better, but as it is...[[Image:Pink mowse.png|25px]]<font face="Estrangelo Edessa"><font color="Blue">Godot   I live in the Infinite monkey cage 01:11, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The Promised Land of Happy, Productive Editing flows with milk, honey and doughnuts. --Le législateur (talk) 01:16, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You didn't ask me what kind of doughnuts I like so now I'm suspicious of your candidacy. How am I supposed to know what doughnuts you'll bring if you don't thoroughly discuss them in you platform? Better hope there are no bakers in the electorate. 04:03, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Ke k lik
No. Just no. Why? I'm originally from Cpedia and have been considered dead on RWiki too many times (about 4). 01:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * So, er, did somebody nominate you or are you self-not-nominating or something? 13:23, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

DELETE MARATREANISM
Vote for me, for a Maratrean-free wiki. (oh, and Bricks, you'll be gone too) DELETE MARATREANISM (talk) 03:54, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Your platform is a bit lacking. After you hyopthetically got rid of Maratrean, what would you then do as mod?--Colonel Sanders (talk) 23:56, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Doesn't matter. The account is retired. 13:26, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Lumenos
Vote Lumenos for less moderation. I promise not to do anything (bad). ~ Lumenos (talk) 02:48, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Ty
Since I am a glutton for punishment, I have decided to toss my hat in the ring. I don't feel we should hand out long bans or put someone in sysop revoke for longer than a few hours without a community decision. Mods aren't a higher class of user. For fucks sake don't feed the troll or applaud the drama queen. We don't need a monolithic rules structure. Use a light touch over an iron fist. Cheers, Nowwhat? 02:36, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I support Ty! His ideas are the epitome of RW success!--Colonel Sanders (talk) 02:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * What would be examples of matters in which you would intervene as a moderator?-- 03:33, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Do mean things like "getting rid of Brx" or more prosaic measures like "Chopping Brx's ears off and using them for sun-glasses"? AceAce For Mod! 04:04, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

CRIMINALIZE MARATREANISM
I'm back and back in the running! If elected, my first order of business will be a permaban for Marafuckian. My second will be a permaban for Brxbrx. Next, I will monitor the Internets for any similar fucks incoming, and pwn them too. CRIMINALIZE MARATREANISM (talk) 22:39, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * oh, and permaban JimJast too, but i think he's already fucked off himself CRIMINALIZE MARATREANISM (talk) 22:42, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow. This is about as exciting and imaginative as the Vandalize Conservapedia Campaign. Are you two in cahoots? DickTurpis (talk) 22:43, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Titus Atticus
I should make clear that I am not Marcus. Rather I am an independent candidate who has decided, with Marcus's blessing to fight for a return to the RationalWiki that he and I stand for. Marcus and I have discussed that having him run for Moderator would be a breach of the rule banning his participation here. Instead, we feel that the best way to achieve change is to be within the tent, exerting influence within the rules set out by the website. All those who wish a return to the good old days of RationalWiki should consider voting for Titus Atticus. Titus Atticus (talk) 23:47, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * We'll wait until the Big Mac endorses you on his wiki, then we'll ban you for being a sockpuppet of a desperate troll.-- 01:30, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No, we won't. AceAce For Mod! 02:04, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It's pretty obviously MC. -- Nx  / talk 07:41, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * MC as a mod — such a scenario could be very interesting. I'd be fascinated to see what he would do if elected. 08:50, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Not to labour the point, but I think I have made it sufficiently clear that I am not Marcus. The fact that I am running under the banner of the ideas and principles of Marcus Cicero's great Mobocratic Restoration Movement does not mean that I am one and the same.  Titus Atticus (talk) 09:27, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * In all fairness, there is no hard evidence that TA=MC, just a lot of inferences, assumptions, guesses, etc. 09:30, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe Nx should checkuser him/her/it. AceAce For Mod! 10:39, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You're right, I'll do that, we wouldn't want to elect MC after all. -- Nx  / talk 15:28, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * if we're dumb enough to elect someone who turns up, out of the blue, whether they're MC or not, then we deserve everything we get. Bad Faith (talk) 15:43, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Titus Atticus (talk) 10:49, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * A website is not a country. QED.   11:32, 24 December 2011 (UTC)