I'm back again to nominate another user for the position of Moderator. This user is Dark Jeto, who I'm sure most of you know by now.
Now, I'm not going to go through the process of explaining the position and all that again, as I did so on the last Moderator Promotion Thread. The following reasons are why I personally believe Dark Jeto could take on the job:
He shows a positive demeanor when dealing with other users.
He doesn't participate in or start flame wars.
He's active across most of the Forum Boards.
He's an all around cool guy, and a pleasure to have as part of this community.
So without further ado, I will ask:
Voting closed, final results: 12 in support and 0 in opposition.
Keep in mind the following:
Irrelevant or off topic posts will be deleted.
Flame wars will not be tolerated, if a flame war starts, the discussion will be closed.
Give a proper explanation for why you voted how you did, don't just say "I voted in support because Jeto is my friend" elaborate, give reason
I voted in support as I think he'll be a great addition to the wiki staff overall.
I've seen Jeto on pretty much every part of the wiki, from editing and chat to the forum and find that he takes a similar approach to most situations, he acts calmly and always appear to think through what he's going to do or say. I've never seen him trying to provoke others, or act in any hostile manner for that matter. He's also one of the most active members on the forum at the moment, which is obviously a plus.
I also feel that having more moderators would better establish the position as a proper role on the wiki, which in turn might cause more people to use the forum, knowing there are users designated to keeping check on it.
TL;DR version: He's an overall nice guy and spends plenty of time on the forum. I also think more moderators would allow the forum to grow.
Along with the reasons mentioned above, I've bumped into him a few times (mostly in regards to discussing lore) and he seems to be an intelligent and rational person, he doesn't jump to conclusions and he doesn't resort to ad hominems or red herrings in debates. When the other party is wrong about something (including myself on a few points) he has explained why the other party's point isn't quite correct instead of resorting to simply tear it down.