Template:RfAV I, SirAston, nominate Myself for Chat Mod. I've been regularely active in the chat and have shown the capacity to help users that asked questions in the wiki and also staying calm when it gets rough. According to Akali, I've even shown the ability to defuse heated arguments so they can end or continue on a rational level. Therefore, I think that I've shown some of the qualities that makes a fine CMod, my only possible hindrances being not a perfect user of the English language, me still being some sort of Wiki-noob and me being a relatively "fresh" user who began his monkey business here around summer '13. SirAston (talk) 11:11, December 23, 2013 (UTC)
- Question — Does SirAston deserve CMod-rights/Is there a need for a new CMod on the LoL-Wiki?
- Support — With the recent changes (or discussed changes) to split the mod and cmod roles, I suspect we'll need some good cmods. SirAston is certainly active and has shown some skill at defusing arguments. It helps that he seems to be universally well-liked, which tends to be a useful trait in a chat mod. So long as the non-native English doesn't prove to be a hindrance, I think he could be good. So, I vote in support. --DocTanner (talk) 11:15, December 23, 2013 (UTC)
- Support — ~ Demise101 @ Talk! @ Contribs! ~ 04:54, December 25, 2013 (UTC)
Shall he be a Chat Mod? Yes he should. Why should he be a Chat Mod you wonder? Well, he is a really active person in the wiki, almost 24/7 in the wiki chat, he helps a person when someone is in deep trouble and he also has Sir in his username (+1 Swag Points). Thus, he shall be a Chat Mod becaus of these reasons, so i vote in support. Rengar, The Pridestalker (talk) 11:24, December 23, 2013 (UTC)
- Neutral — SirAston is a nice person and pretty active but as with Veh and Psy I think he may be a little too nice/unsuited for the role. We're looking to change the role of chat moderator from being something like a consolation prize for being in long-term chat users has to actually being a moderator with actual power. This change means that we have to be stricter with giving out chat mod rights and I just don't know if SirAston has what it takes to be a real moderator. In the end I haven't had enough exposure to solidify my opinion either way so I'm going to stay neutral. 05:25, December 25, 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose — I've been in chat with this guy and He seems nice, some might even say He's too nice for a Chat Mod. He spots people who only comes to chat to troll a bit too late (the kind of people with absurd usernames and stock profile pics if they use one at all) and I think He would be too slow on the kick/ban button. --V3hemenc3 (talk) 11:34, December 23, 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose — Even though he's a nice person, I doubt he'd be good at chat modding. My reasons are mostly similar to those of veh, so I won't elaborate. Destroying small children is one of the things Anasigma does best. 05:06, December 25, 2013 (UTC)
- Comment — This may not be the place but it seems odd to me that Demise's no word support is seen as valid while someone who listed 3 good reasons to back up his vote (Really active in chat, nice person and goes out of his way to help others) basically had his vote deleted just because he had a little fun while typing his reasoning. I just find it interesting, for someone who doesn't like popularity contests and wants to promote voting with opinions instead of with numbers to basically be enforcing that kind of thing, especially since we decided against having no word supports about a year ago. 05:18, December 25, 2013 (UTC)
Comment — What seems odd to me is that there's a crat who can't seem to stop criticizing people, throwing their weight around to influence opinions of said user. My vote is cast as a formality only; I've already done a complete interview and rundown with Aston when he first entertained the thoughts of becoming a chat mod. I already could have promoted him without consensus, a benefit most chat mods had already enjoyed. However, I said at that time that I would see what happened and keep a tight leash on him, something that should be procedure considering this big fiasco we're looking at here. As for popularity contests, the in-question vote is a popularity vote, and here's why.
1) Well, he is a really active person in the wiki, almost 24/7 in the wiki chat. Incorrect; in regards to the times when Aston is online, the user only joins the chat from time to time, and often for short periods only. Extrapolated opinion, and basically a lie, no matter how good the intention was.
2) he helps a person when someone is in deep trouble Reasonable, but wouldn't really mean much without an actual example (hint hint: name someone, maybe, or give a scenario).
3) he also has Sir in his username (+1 Swag Points). You're right, we really need votes like this. It's not a popularity contest, it's a...swag contest!
4) You're basically firing into the dark for this particular case, having no presence in chat whatsoever and not knowing who the voter is or how the voter and the nominee have interacted in the past. This is a popularity-based vote. My vote was thrown in to make the process move faster.
- Comment — I'd recommend avoiding putting votes without any explanation, and votes with the explanation "as per User:______" and nothing else. LionsLight(talk) 06:03, December 25, 2013 (UTC)