RationalWiki:Moderator elections/Campaigning/Archive8

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Ace McWicked[edit]

Ace McWicked (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · vandal log · block log)

Like Human below I have been around some 8 years. Know the ins and outs of the site and am fiercely committed to its original principles. Have no real desire to moderate the community at large specifically, I'm more interested in making sure the original vision of the site is kept (i.e open discussion, light on blocks and strong on engagement) and making sure the other mods keep to their remit. That's about it. I'm pretty tired and really hungry after being on the road for a few days so going to neck some beers now and drive erratically to the nearest hamburger joint where I'll abuse the staff and demand chicken. Acei9 02:51, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

You eat meat?!?! MURDERER!!!11!1!. Carpetsmoker (talk) 02:55, 28 December 2015 (UTC)


Ayzmo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · vandal log · block log)

I don't post a lot, but I'm on this website almost every day. I can't say I've gotten in any arguments with any users here (unless EdPoor starts editing here). I don't intent to do a huge amount of moderating, but am willing to do what is necessary. — Unsigned, by: Ayzmo / talk / contribs 01:02, 25 December 2015 (UTC)


Carpetsmoker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · vandal log · block log)

I pledge to be Fair and Balanced. Carpetsmoker (talk) 18:15, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorta tilting toward you. Basically, I like laissez-faire until a user has become a clear, ongoing problem, and then I want a mod to be willing to rein in -- rid us if called for -- a disruptive presence and source of endless drama. In a nutshell, I don't think mods should do too much, but when they are needed, they also must be willing act. What think ye?---Mona- (talk) 21:25, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
I would, in general, support a slightly more pro-active attitude of the moderators than what I've seen for most of the last two years here. Sometimes I feel that we ignore problems too long. This doesn't necessarily mean imposing more sanctions, but may also mean "stepping in" and telling everyone to just "cool down" before things escalate too much (which in some cases can be enforced by mod-locking a page for a brief time) or by arbitrating a dispute in an as neutral as-possible-way. In this way, a "moderator" can do what the name implies: "moderate" things.
In fact, I think this small shift already happened based on the last month or so.
At the same time, we should be very careful not to discourage discussion (even repeated heated discussion) on controversial topics—such as the Palestinian question or Gamergate. RW doesn't strive to be neutral, but it does strive to be honest; and people pointing out bullshit in RW pages keeps us honest. Carpetsmoker (talk) 00:30, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
That all sounds good to me, with the caveat that I don't see it as the mods' role to enforce "honesty." But to ensure that those who hold minority or controversial views get a fair shake, sure. After all, when I got here last summer I felt I was treated unfairly, but the reason had to do with TPTB disliking that my aggressive prosecution of my POV and facts on the I-P issue upset those who disagreed and caused a shitfest. Several of them. The hostility I first encountered wasn't due to the substance of my opposition (which turned out to be largely supported by the majority), but rather was due to my being a catalyst for much controversy at the wiki. It wasn't right to be so antagonistic to a newcomer just for aggressively challenging the status quo that somewhat kept the peace.---Mona- (talk) 01:11, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
"I don't see it as the mods' role to enforce honesty." -> Neither do I; why do you think I do? My point was that people disagreeing keep you honest and prevents communities from becoming an echo chamber. Carpetsmoker (talk) 01:25, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Sorry if it seemed I was accusing you of proposing to enforce "honesty." You didn't say that. Anyway, I basically agree with your positions. At the level of user-to-user, I don't always agree with your understanding of what "fairness" requires in our articles, but that's ok.---Mona- (talk) 03:50, 28 December 2015 (UTC)


CorruptUser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · vandal log · block log)

I can be reserved when I need to be, but otherwise I'm busy with the goat sacrifices snark GMO pages. Regards! CorruptUser (talk) 03:23, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

What do you think about ideological partiality dictating mod decisions? In my strong view, this wiki has suffered from a mod protecting, against all reason, a very disruptive user with whom he is politically aligned. Some have better temperament than others for separating their own views from the duties of policing and judging. Do you think you have the temperament to do that?---Mona- (talk) 21:32, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
I believe I can, yes. I get along with and respect ChrisAmiss after all... CorruptUser (talk) 01:17, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Genghis Khant[edit]

Genghis Khant (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · vandal log · block log)

Vote for me as your second choice. Because I'm worth it (possibly). Redchuck.gif ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. Moderator 13:54, 30 December 2015 (UTC)


Human (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · vandal log · block log)

I've only been here eight and half years, so I am still learning the ropes, unlike some of you long-term experts. However, I do think I have a good grasp of some of the principles of the site, and would strive to uphold them with the absolute minimum of interference and effort. ħumanUser talk:Human 23:50, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

I for one, welcome our human overlords. CorruptUser (talk) 17:49, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Narky Sawtooth[edit]

NarkySawtooth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · vandal log · block log)

I've got a reputation for being slow and careful... Unless I'm joking around, which I instantly back away from if someone informs me that I need to be serious. I'm actually the 1st or 3rd runner-up of the original election, depending on a coin toss. Might as well vote for me because of that alone, eh? Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyarnyar~) 20:52, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Do you have that reputation? I'm not sure. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 20:48, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Then what reputation do I have? Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyarnyar~) 00:36, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm voting you because Ryulong and Typhoon declined and both David Gerard and Kitsulaine are already mods. Analyse it however you wish.Keter (talk) 20:55, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Where did you get the idea that Kitsunelaine is a mod? She's not. Also, I don't think you can vote. Carpetsmoker (talk) 21:06, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
I meet the requirements to get added to autoconfirmed, apparently.Keter (talk) 02:02, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Unless I am mistaken, you need to be in the "eligible" group to vote? Or is that just for board elections? The page doesn't really say ... Carpetsmoker (talk) 21:10, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Smerdis of Tlön[edit]

Smerdis of Tlön (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · vandal log · block log)

I am at a loss to think of reasons why I ought to be a moderator. I am out of step with the zeitgeist of the site in more ways than one. I make a lousy authority figure. I usually prefer to avoid conflict. This may be why you should vote for me. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 06:25, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

The first two are exactly why I voted for you last time. BicyclewheelToxic mowse.gif 19:01, 27 December 2015 (UTC)


TheroadtoWiganPier (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · vandal log · block log)

I would hope that I would be a careful, calm and fair moderator. Those are certainly my IRL characteristics. One area I would like to push from a moderator standpoint is polishing up RW policy pages so that we can have proper points of reference when there are policy or procedural disputes. Oh, and I am in a GMT +8 timezone if folks think that is helpful.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 05:29, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

In the absence of sufficient policies, would you be reasonably aggressive in reining in abusive users? Like (but not limited to) these hordes of GGers who are watching this site as their little soap opera and laying plans to dox several editors, to harass David Gerard's wife, and to contact my neighbors (they think they have my home address; it's actually my federal agent son's address -- I hope they show up at his door) to report I support pedophiles? Can we stop letting these assholes in here? They just run back to their fellow asshats ranting about us and making plans to harass us. Would you do something about that? ---Mona- (talk) 05:52, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
@Mona: You know you can run, too, right? FuzzyCatPotato of the Sanctimonious Queers (talk/stalk) 06:06, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes, FCP, someone nominated me and I declined. I do not want to be a mod; I want to edit articles. I also want mods who get rid of disruptive users so we all can direct our energy to the articles. ---Mona- (talk) 06:25, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Doxing has always been a ban-able offence. It's the status quo. Carpetsmoker (talk) 11:23, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
I think Mona is referring to threatening offsite activity where a member ban is not the status quo. Plenty of that going on at the moment.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 11:29, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes Carpetsmoker, what TRWP said. There are severl sites watching everytnig that is said here and carrying on extended discussions about us. Indeed, one among us has just joined them to ask for the downlow on doxing Queex. Several propose to harass David Gerard's wife, and to call my neighbors and friends to "reveal" that I support pedophiles (they are not going to find my neighbors, but I wouldn't care if they did). Some of these indicate they are already members here; others have migrated since FCP, quite bizarrely, just extended an invitation to them at one of their pits. I think all the GG-related pages are sysop-protected; if not, they should be so there's no draw for them. Bottom line, these are unhinged and quite vicious creatures we do not need here as they show up.---Mona- (talk) 20:04, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Do you plan to go back to your old posts that reveal your personal info? Some of the info you provided provides... a bit too much IMHO. While I'm not going to claim to like you, even you don't deserve to be doxxed. CorruptUser (talk) 03:04, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
CorruptUser, I can't be doxxed in any meaningful sense of the word. I do not hide my identity and openly state my associations and some of my history, mostly public history. But I can, of course, be harassed. My family can be as well. And, others here can be doxxed. I resolutely defend the right to online anonymity, and believe it is critical to freedom of expression. Just because I'm not in a position to have to worry about employers or clients googling me doesn't mean everyone else is. In any event, with me the issue is harassment; with others here it was doxxing and/or also harassment.---Mona- (talk) 23:46, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
To answer your first sentence directly, yes within the bounds of established RW policy and practice. As an example, I think the preventative ban on Vordrak/Matthew Hopkins was correct and a smart move. This also serves as an example of when offsite activity is a valid reason for ban. Doxxing and other forms of personal harassment are something I would never take lightly.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 06:14, 21 December 2015 (UTC)


MarcusCicero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · vandal log · block log)

For two years I have been fighting your cause against the machine - I will do so again. Banned for daring to speak truth to power - ostracised for standing up to the elite. Elect me not to reform rationalwiki, not to help rationalwiki. Elect me so that I can smash the junta in charge and restore power to those who deserve it - the people. I've been castigated, I've been pursued. I've been shunned. But I always prevail. I cannot die, and neither can the spirit of liberty, despite the best efforts of the cabal. If you want a yes man, vote for the others. If you want revolution, vote for me. Marcus Cicero SPQR100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 18:49, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

http://24.media.tumblr.com/8d7603e3d2faac1f698787193d5da1bc/tumblr_mulkzilZ9a1rz1wnio2_250.gif Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 18:54, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
We get a revolution if you're mod? Cool beans!---Mona- (talk) 21:19, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

This is why we cannot have nice things. WéáśéĺóíďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 22:15, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Well you know, revolution is about breaking things.---Mona- (talk) 23:39, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

There is both a junta and a cabal! Woo hoo!--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 00:39, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

If AgingHippie blocks someone for a 1000 years you know it's serious. At any rate, any election gets better with a comic relief candidate. Carpetsmoker (talk) 00:42, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Reverend Black Percy[edit]

Reverend Black Percy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · vandal log · block log)

Me, approaching this podium to speak... I'm really writing here on the Campaign Page for two main reasons.

  • Firstly, I participate here out of the utmost respect towards those who have taken the time from their busy days to poke me about the nomination (a respect that naturally extends to everyone doing worthwhile work on this site).
  • Secondly, I participate here to represent a role that I imagine, perhaps wildly, on a whim, might be of any use whatsoever to the site. I participate here in the odd scenario that we need a calm and restrained - almost vegetative - moderator to vote on moderator-y decisions, one with great respect for the other moderators and who isn't afraid to take instruction and to apologize for errors, even as he is lunged forward from upholding the weight of all those medals that come with the title. I don't suggest for many moderators like this, but one single such person, out of the entire bunch.

The obvious question is probably "Why?". Frankly, it's because my productive needs here are already fulfilled here all the better when it's the typical day for me. No drama, and edits from me that people enjoy. And I've already been forced to participate in more drama than I'd like to have done, so don't worry that I go into this with any desire to wage war or "right wrongs". I'm here at all with a simple shower thought - for me to hopefully be able to walk that tightrope of being a general purpose moderator, while still being a person not whisked up in whatever conflict is currently going on, and as such; a person that may be expected to not "side in the issue" alongside the very lines of the conflict. Someone to be called upon to weigh in, and who would do his best to reply by virtue of not being in the meatgrinder himself constantly. That, I imagine, may be benificial. Or not.

In any case, my first order of business is to acknowledge the process of this election and the amicable positive relationships I've cultivated with many users here. So, I stick my head in when asked, because good people work to make this election into something. So here I am, present and voting, if nothing else.

While I myself will be voting for quite active (as opposed to passive) moderators in the upcoming election, I doubly enter the election with the promise to not do anything rash. In fact, were I elected, I would expect to be consulted last out of the moderators on hand (with the obvious exception of timezone-driven personnel restraints). Maybe there's a need and a want for just one moderator overtly like that? If not, then there's no loss in that fact whatsoever - it simply wasn't what you fine people wanted. And I'm content with my own role here as it is, regardless.

So, were I elected, I would have to provide a little disclaimer about time and energy and so on. But if nothing else - since I was approached about running - I'm going to wager that as a campaign promise of sorts, you can count on me to - if nothing else - staying calm and carrying on. And hopefully, by doing so, having the same effect radiate unto others.

If this sounds like a very meek campaign base, then don't worry. With this all, I mostly wanted to show that I care about this site, about the users' attempts at democratic election, and about the people on this site who invest the effort to make the RW trains run on time (to the extent that they do).

So, don't vote for me if you want a hot-headed führer who can't say it if he can't spray it. Vote for me if you want a pathetic wannabe Gandalf the Gray ruminating in the background while gently puffing his pipe, as all the others are shouting their lungs off over the discussion table. With a little bit of luck, when he does speak up, what he says isn't complete poppycock. Thank you for your time, happy life day, and so on. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:26, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


Ferret poster.jpg

This user is an acolyte
of the ferret overlords

ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 13:26, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


I just have a question. You had really objected when I reverted a post on my user talk page that I deemed harassing or trolling. As I and others explained, users here (at least those with some time here) are generally deferred to when making that call. Where do you stand on the issue now?---Mona- (talk) 23:39, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

While I abide by the mob consensus on the issue, I think it opens a huge room for the kind of "I don't like what you're writing so it's trolling and I'll revert it"-actions that are a bad compromise between either a general "Don't scrub your user talk page"-policy (with some exceptions already in place à la vile race trolling or linkspamming) or a "Everyone is king/queen of their own user talk page"-policy. Now we have a system in which some editors can make calls about removing comments they don't like while others are chastised for doing so. This is likely to enhance the impression of an "RW in-group" who gets to behave in ways not otherwise accepted and thus depicting RW as a hypocritical buddy club. ScepticWombat (talk) 15:39, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the answer. Myself, I think it's fine if we retain a policy that very rarely allows deletions of article talk pages, but that on a user's talk page -- where people go to specifically address them -- the user has latitude to prevent their page from hosting comments and conversations to and about them posted in bad faith. Obviously, if someone starts deleting a lot, they may not be using this permission reasonably, and then the mob or a mod may have to intervene. But that's like pretty much everything else around here. Finally, I share concerns about looking like there are in-groups and people who can do what others may not. It's just that I don't think the user's talk page policy is even close to being the greatest problem there.---Mona- (talk) 16:19, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Candidate fact sheet[edit]

Since people had much fun with this last time: FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 01:27, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

  1. 142․124․55․236: User since 11 May 2014.
    1. Level-headed, for a BON. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 01:27, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
    2. Carpetsmoker (talk) 01:37, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
    3. ScepticWombat (talk) 02:47, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
    4. A happy camper. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:41, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
    5. ShabiDOO 15:14, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
  2. Ace McWicked: User since 31 March 2008. Has held moderator/bureaucrat positions. Some controversy over user rights in 2010? Ninja'd.
    1. The saloon bar was blocked at work while he was around. Good times. BicyclewheelToxic mowse.gif 11:02, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
    2. Cosmikdebris (talk) 05:24, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
  3. Ayzmo: User since 6 March 2012.
  4. Carpetsmoker: User since 27 January 2014. Ninja'd.
    1. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 02:17, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
    2. --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 02:23, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
    3. For the initiative, calm stamina and work done to present the Ryu matter to the coop, he deserves wiki-wide gratitude. The only endorsement I'm making because while I do prefer several other of the remainders, I'd be unhappy with only a few of the serious candidates.---Mona- (talk) 04:08, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
    4. Spud (talk) 13:17, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
    5. I'm with Mona on this one. A quality user whom we can't afford to lose. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:41, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
    6. I say yes to Carpetsmoker, because he is very hands off unless something happens, and he will be on that shit like a hawk. Serocco 23:51, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
    7. Fair and Balanced. --Cosmikdebris (talk) 05:24, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
  5. CorruptUser: User since 28 January 2015. (Lurker for a few months longer)
    1. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 02:17, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
  6. Genghis Khant: User since 29 July 2007. Was moderator until last election.
    1. Cosmikdebris (talk) 05:27, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
  7. Human: User since 21 May 2007. Was moderator until last election. Ninja'd.
    1. ScepticWombat (talk) 02:47, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
    2. CorruptUser (talk) 03:05, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
    3. Let's face it, the human has contributed enormously. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:24, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
    1. Never bloody here, and often only turns up to complain. "Change it all back!" is his cry. Outed a trans user by posting an email here. BicyclewheelToxic mowse.gif 11:02, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
      Do you care to back up that wild accusation with facts? ħumanUser talk:Human 16:40, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
      I really haven't seen you around much at all human, but I'd also be interested to know what evidence there is for the outing accusation. That's serious and should be documented or retracted.---Mona- (talk) 18:09, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
      I often lurk without comment. As far as the accusation, it should be removed. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:10, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
  8. MarcusCicero: User since 11 December 2007. Was moderator until last election.
    1. "What happened? ... the aspies have completely taken over and the fifteen year olds with tumblr and whatnot have taken over. Time for a purge." Not wrong! — Unsigned, by: Pippa / talk / contribs 17:14, 28 December 2015
    1. How exactly did this guy get to be moderator? Carpetsmoker (talk) 01:37, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
      1. Enough people voted for him, presumably as a joke. Even he wasn't expecting it. BicyclewheelToxic mowse.gif 11:02, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
    2. Moderating will only distract him from his long-awaited exposé of RW's secret anti-freedom cabal, possibly in novel or play form. BicyclewheelToxic mowse.gif 11:02, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
      Old RW was a lawless wasteland and also making him part of the machine he hated so much was probably the most hilarious ironic punishment there is.
    3. Our in-house Donald Trump'Legionwhat do you want from me 16:43, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

|₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Star of David.png This isn't 'Nam. This is deteriorating. There are rules. 02:06, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

  1. Goat
  2. NarkySawtooth: User since 15 January 2015. Was a BoN in 2012 or so. Ran/runs User:MiniNyarBot; ninja'd by extension.
    1. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 02:17, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
    2. Why not CorruptUser (talk) 03:05, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
    3. Spud (talk) 13:17, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
    4. A nice fellow. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:41, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
    5. Someone who does best to not piss anyone off, while somehow, also not taking a cowardly middle of the road stance'Legionwhat do you want from me 16:41, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
    1. Pretty much only here for the lulz... actually that's more of an endorsement. BicyclewheelToxic mowse.gif 11:02, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
      You shouldn't make assumptions like that about people, especially not when you phrase it in a way that doesn't start with "I think." Do you assume that because I'm odd? I never asked to be odd. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyarnyar~) 06:07, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
  3. Noir LeSable: User since 13 October 2010.
  4. Raysenn: User since 26 September 2013.
    1. For being the only user here who could read Portuguese and thereby helping to expose the truth about what the vile LTR was doing. Spud (talk) 13:17, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
    2. Raysenn is like that special type of cousin that you'd not just take to prom, but whom you'd gladly get drive-in McDonalds with right afterwards. Thumbs up. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:58, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
    3. --Cosmikdebris (talk) 05:24, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
  5. Reverend Black Percy: User since 19 May 2015; ninja'd.
    1. Spud (talk) 13:17, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
    2. 95% useful, 5% navsidebar shenanigans. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 21:51, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
      I stand by that description! And why shouldn't I; I wrote the current snark for like 80% of the navbars! :3 Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:55, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
    3. Sane, fair and a philosopher. All around good guy, as far as I can see. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 15:50, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
    1. The same comment as I've made with TheroadtoWiganPier; I like RBP, but he's been a user for too short of a time to prove long-term sanity ... Sorry :-( Carpetsmoker (talk) 00:56, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
      In my book, Carpet, that just means that the day I do get your vote, that really means you're giving me the vote of confidence. So, thank you. I'll be, as always, working hard to earn that same vote of confidence from the community at large. It's just what I do. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:38, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
      Though, Carpet, I've been a member for 7½ months, so that's over 6. Technically - what is your stance on that fact, dear chum? :3 Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:19, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
      I have only made two endorsements, and for very specific reasons in each case. I've made zero anti-endorsements. I want to stay out of any further politics on this election and no one should read anything into my non-endorsements or no anti-endorsements. I do support some others, and do not support a few, but don't want to be public on any more of my preferences.---Mona- (talk) 22:21, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
  6. ScepticWombat: User since 24 July 2014.
    1. Carpetsmoker (talk) 01:37, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
    2. --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 02:23, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
    3. CorruptUser (talk) 03:06, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
    4. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 03:07, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
    5. Gotta dig the wombat. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:41, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
    6. If not Carpetsmoker, then I want Wombat to be the new moderator, because he has the same mentality as Carpetsmoker. Serocco 23:52, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
    7. Absolute moderator material. Hands off and a historian. He seems to have learned from history as so many have not. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 15:50, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
    8. --Cosmikdebris (talk) 05:24, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
  7. Smerdis_of_Tlön: User since 13 July 2013.
    1. The not-in-the-in-crowd candidate. We need one. BicyclewheelToxic mowse.gif 11:02, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
    2. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 02:17, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
    3. --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 02:23, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
    4. ScepticWombat (talk) 02:47, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
    5. A very clever person. Spud (talk) 13:17, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
    6. Sweet memes are made of grease, who am I to diss a cheese? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:41, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
  8. TheroadtoWiganPier: User since 27 June 2015.
    1. I think we have a lot in common. Spud (talk) 13:17, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
    2. Hasn't wronged me as far as I know. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:41, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
    3. Since we are now electing 4, and so people don't think the recent kerfuffle between me and TRWP means anything, I make known my endorsement.---Mona- (talk) 22:09, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
    1. I would endorse if he/she was a user for longer than just 6 months. Long-term sanity is yet to be proven, and I've had some bad experiences promoting what appeared to be good people too soon in the past... Not exactly an anti-endorsement, more of a caveat... Sorry :-( Carpetsmoker (talk) 01:37, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
      I get that. No need to apologise :) --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 01:48, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
  9. Weaseloid: User since 31 July 2008. Was moderator in 2012. Ninja'd.
    1. Deals fearlessly with trolls, which I respect deeply. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:19, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
    2. 95% helpful, 5% opposing my takeover of RW:DUP. Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 21:51, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
      That'll be settled once we finally anoint RW:DUP as your talkpage. ;) Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:13, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
    3. I welcome our weasel overlords. Cosmikdebris (talk) 05:24, 1 January 2016 (UTC)