LEGO Message Boards Wiki:Requests for Rights/Chat Moderator

This is LMBW's requests for chat moderator page. If you wish to request moderator rights, please read this page first, and make sure you fulfill the requirements listed here. Moderators have the ability to kick and ban users from chat when they are being disruptive.

To file a request, place the following code under the "current requests" header, above any existing requests.

replace this with your username
replace this with a brief paragraph about why you want to be nominated. ~

Comments


Requests made on this page are a vote, meaning that if they achieve at least 20 supporting votes and 75% support out of the total supports and opposes, then their request will be closed as successful. Users voting on a request must give a valid reason for their support or oppose. Most requests last for around a week, unless there is clear consensus either way after a short period of time. At least 96 hours must pass before a request can be closed.

If a user has been nominated for chat moderator before, add  to the end of the topic header. If a request for moderator fails, the user who requested the rights must wait 4 weeks before requesting them again. For users with multiple requests, add the respective number of the request. It is also considered good practice to link to previous requests for rights when nominating a user.

Archived requests can be found here.

Loney 97
I miss it. Lone Lionheart 01:11, September 11, 2015 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) would be fabulous -Ava
 * 2) If he can be a great admin, he can certainly be a good chat mod. Rus
 * 3) Responsible, mature and experienced, Loney would make a fantabulous chat mod. -~π~ (talk) 01:14, September 11, 2015 (UTC)
 * 4) Already was. —May the Force be with you, and may Darkness follow you. Oh. I'm the Doctor, by the way.
 * 5) Per Pi.   Colonel Roy Mustang    (talk) 01:20, September 11, 2015 (UTC)
 * 6) Definitely. Was a great Admin, so I have absolutely no problem withgiving him back a fraction of his old rights! KnightoftheLight (talk)
 * 7) Of course you can have it back. LegoWebby101 -Invalid support reason.
 * 8) Per above. ~EvilMidnightNG~ (talk) 02:21, September 11, 2015 (UTC)
 * 9) * tries to think of acceptable support reason for five solid minutes* Well, you've done it before, you had better be able to can do it again. Weirdosig.png (leave a message)  02:29, September 11, 2015 (UTC)
 * 10) Over qualified! Already was a great Admin.
 * 11) IM SUPPORTING BECAUSE I THINK LONEY IS A GOOD ADMIN AND CRAP SO JUST SAY MY VOTE IS VALID ALREADY. ~ KiraNotKirac
 * 12) Per above Lunaicus (talk) 06:00, September 11, 2015 (UTC)
 * 13) I don't know him, but from what I've seen, per above, I guess. ~Psycho ~
 * 14) Uh... he was an admin who simply demoted himself for his own reasons. So, seriously, why not? Alemas2005: Mostly Harmless(Talk to me) 11:17, September 11, 2015 (UTC)
 * 15) Pretty much per everyone else.  Great admin, and there's no reason I can think of why he shouldn't have CM again. A Fuzzy Little Hobbit (talk) 12:25, September 11, 2015 (UTC)
 * 16) Loney was a good chat moderator before, it stand to reason he'll be good again. -spy
 * 17) Get back to work, you lazy bum. nobody said you could retire ~Zaney -Invalid support reason.
 * 18) He was before, is still qualified, so no reason why not. Aravis (talk)
 * 19) I'd make a comment about being admin before, but that's been done. So per the above. Michaelyoda (talk)
 * 20) Per above. -AP
 * 21) Per Aravis. Purplebrick333 (talk) 01:53, September 12, 2015 (UTC)
 * Per, like, everyone. Ireithien
 * 1) this user is very competent. this user understands the mindset behind online moderation. this user has the experience of previously being a mod on this wiki. this user has a clear understanding of the community on this wiki. this user can and will apply this knowledge and understanding of the community appropriately as he has done in the past. support. -Harold89 (talk)
 * 2) Per all the pers that per the ppl. And I put my name here if I want him to be CM, rite? - Testerz

Oppose

 * 1) Just to be that person, because Sammy said no one would.  And yeah yeah yeah, invalid reason. Look, see? I'll cross it out myself.  - Izzy Invalid oppose reason.

Comments

 * Who said it was an invail support reason? That is literally nuts. He really likes Loney, so why does he need a reason?  L • S  • B


 * Personally I think the whole "needs a valid reason." is unnecessary and doesn't keep biases out at all, but "yes" isn't considered a "valid" reason unfortunately, I plan on making a vote on getting rid of that rule in the future though.   Colonel Roy Mustang    (talk) 05:39, September 11, 2015 (UTC)


 * GG, Izzy. -~π~ (talk) 02:20, September 12, 2015 (UTC)
 * ^ --Weirdo