Forum:New IRC channel/Votes For Op

This page can be used for voting for/nominating operators for the new channel. All nominees for +F are automatically here, though users may nominate themselves if they wish to. 03:18, October 31, 2011 (UTC)
 * As a general guideline, successful ops should get at least 65 to 70% support. After two weeks, the votes will be closed by a neutral user. Cook Me Plox 03:46, October 31, 2011 (UTC)

Charitwo
- I've seen very rash actions from charitwo in the past that doesn't live up to standards I believe channel operators should reach. However, charitwo's discussion in the archive and his withdrawal from voting for +F has changed my vote from to. Rappy 01:52, November 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * Support

--Gardimuer { ʈalk } 02:01, November 1, 2011 (UTC)

- I've known charitwo for quite some time, and while there were instances in the past where his actions were questionable, he has proven time and again that he has learned from his mistakes and is more than responsible enough to have an op role on the channel. -- Skiz zerz  02:14, November 1, 2011 (UTC)

- Charitwo has always done an excellent job in handling his +o and has kept the channel running. I think it is perfectly acceptable for him to keep his +o.--


 * Oppose

Comments

 * Neutral. I am quite frankly impressed by Charitwo's withdrawal from the +F nom in response to criticism, and I really do hope that he takes that criticism to heart as much as he says he will. That being said, the past trends of ignoring user feedback are concerning, forcing me to be neutral on this. I also hope that this !vote allows Charitwo to realize that it is not my intention to "push an agenda" here, as I would be opposing per some stupid reason if I wanted to do that. 04:20, November 1, 2011 (UTC)

Randomtime
- Level headed. Rappy 01:52, November 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * Support

--Gardimuer { ʈalk } 02:01, November 1, 2011 (UTC)

-- Skiz zerz  02:02, November 1, 2011 (UTC)

- While I have my doubts about him not being a walrus. He is a good op.--

- Per above really. I can trust him with op. 04:20, November 1, 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose

VegaDark
- I haven't seen Vega do anything that would warrant him to not have +o. Rappy 01:52, November 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * Support

-- Skiz zerz  02:02, November 1, 2011 (UTC)

--

- I can trust him with op. 04:20, November 1, 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose

Godisme
- I haven't seen Godisme do anything that would warrant him to not have +o. Rappy 01:52, November 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * Support

--Gardimuer { ʈalk } 02:01, November 1, 2011 (UTC)

-- Skiz zerz  02:02, November 1, 2011 (UTC)

- My concerns on his +F nomination don't really apply here, since there will be lots of oversight of his actions due to lots of active ops. I would recommend that he take some of my concerns to heart, though, and act on them as he sees fit. 04:20, November 1, 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose

ZamorakO o
- I really don't buy either the immature or bad connection arguments, and don't see how they are relevant to whether or not he can kick/ban people effectively. He is a trusted user, and I'm sure that he'll be able to use the tools well. 04:20, November 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * Support

- Acts immature most often than not. Rappy 01:52, November 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose

- While Zam is not the most mature at times he is fine for the most part. What troubles me is his connection and how much it floods the channel, not really something that makes an op look good.--

Comments

 * Immaturity can help keep things in a channel light, and stop one from ripping each other's head off from being to serious. As for my connection, if I know how to use the tools, why would it make me a bad op? 02:31, November 1, 2011 (UTC)

Monchoman45
- Knowledgeable and level headed. Rappy 01:52, November 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * Support

--Gardimuer { ʈalk } 02:01, November 1, 2011 (UTC)

-- Skiz zerz  02:02, November 1, 2011 (UTC)

- Aside from his use of webchat, he knows what he is doing. --

- Why not? 04:20, November 1, 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose

Rappy 4187
- From what I have observed, Rappy has always behaved in a mature and responsible way when interacting with other people on the IRC. --Gardimuer { ʈalk } 02:01, November 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * Support

-- Skiz zerz  02:02, November 1, 2011 (UTC)

- Rappy has experience and is very helpful on the channel. While not always looking at the screen, he gets back to anyone who pings him and I am sure he would handle whatever problems arise while he is on. --

- Why not? 04:20, November 1, 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose

Jazzi
- Maturity used to be factor, but Jazzi seems to have control over this aspect at least in IRC. and hasn't used her +o negatively. I see no reason to take it from her. Rappy 01:52, November 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * Support

- Being a regular in a channel where Jazzi is an op, she knows how to use the +o and most certainly never abuses it. --

- Maybe calling it immaturity is bad wording, but I have issues with how she conducts herself when involved in a dispute. Ops should remain level-headed - I've seen and heard the exact opposite coming from Jazzi. A recent example would be around Tech's sysop flag on pokemon.wikia. Sorry, but I just do not have evidence to show that you would remain sufficiently uninvolved (avoiding a COI) in cases like that. 04:20, November 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose

Tm_T
- I don't see what presence has to do with anything. Op isn't a position, it's access to a few buttons (or /commands in webchat :3). If Tm_T can be trusted to use those tools well, which I believe he can, then why not? 04:27, November 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * Support

- My main concern with Tm is how little he participates in conversations or is actively on the channel. He does not have all that much of a noticeable presence on the channel, something I think is required of an op. --
 * Oppose

Skizzerz
While I have some issues with Skizzerz regarding his lack of interest in wikia while on a wikia channel, I think he has shown to be a pretty fair guy and has used his op in the past for good.--
 * Support

- Skizzerz is trusted, and op is no big deal. If he wants to volunteer his time moderating the channel then why not. 04:20, November 1, 2011 (UTC)

- Based on comments. No real reason to remove Skizzerz current +o if there is still an impartial rationale for having them. Rappy 06:02, November 1, 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose

Comments
I know I am not active at all on the wikis, but I am on IRC pretty much every day and have been for the past few years. I generally only join conversations that interest me, which hasn't been that many recently due to most of the conversations I see when I'm actively browsing IRC have been about help with various wiki things of which I no longer take part in. Hopefully once people start getting the idea that the new channel isn't ONLY for support, I can be a more active member of the IRC community (I must confess that I have no interest left in editing any Wikia wikis, at least for the time being). I have been an op in #wikia since 2007-2008 (don't remember when I first got it since I had it before the switch to atheme services) and most regulars would agree that I haven't really abused my power. I don't end up using it much because other ops happen to be faster to the punch than I am in terms of doing oppy-stuff because I generally try to have a more toned-down resolution of something rather than jumping straight to /kick. I hope you take this into consideration when voting, but ultimately it is up to you (the community here) and I will go with that. -- Skiz zerz  01:59, November 1, 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with most of what you said and what you said above is actually why I oppose. You have no interest in editing at Wikia. You got your op when you were editing at Wikia and have since moved on to ShoutWiki (from what I understand). I am concerned that there will be conflicts of interest. I cannot say that I have ever seen you oper yourself in #Wikia in the year I have been here. That said, you have been active in a lot of disputes and in the channel before/during and after spam raids or when the need to /kick was there... (I am not saying you were 'physically there' as I cannot know that, but you were in the channel). I guess what I am getting at is, the entire year I have been in the channel, you never once used your status to benefit the channel... so I am curious why you still want access. Rappy 02:16, November 1, 2011 (UTC)


 * As with everything I am involved in, I try to keep them as separate as possible. At the time I was still involved with Wikia, I was also involved with StrategyWiki, which could have been technically considered competing with Wikia Gaming and similar wikis. However, I did my absolute best to not promote StrategyWiki when at Wikia, and not promote Wikia when at StrategyWiki. If you look at the few times that ShoutWiki was brought up in #wikia and I have been around (actively participating in chat), you may have notice that around 100% of the time I have directed the users that if they want to discuss ShoutWiki as an alternative for Wikia or whatever, that they do not do so in the channel. As such, while there is a "Conflict of Interest" (and I really dislike saying that because I am still interested in having the Wikia IRC community thrive) due to my involvement at ShoutWiki, I can't think of even one example where I have promoted ShoutWiki or sat back while allowing others to promote ShoutWiki on #wikia. Also, there have been a few cases where I have opped myself on #wikia this past year, and I can provide the logs of them if need be. However, I have many more examples of stopping stuff from happening or resolving something without having used my op access, which would probably not have been possible if those involved did not know that I could op and handle the situation less diplomatically should it escalate to that point. As for me being on the channel when things requiring /kick were happening, I'm probably only on the channel for an hour or two a day physically, the rest of the time is me leaving my client open and connected overnight or when going to class, etc. -- Skiz zerz  02:40, November 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * EDIT: I see I forgot to answer your question as to why I still want access. While I hinted at one of the reasons above, there are a few reasons why I think the IRC community here could benefit from me retaining my access. First off, there have been instances where I was seemingly the only op online when something was happening, and cases like this will happen increasingly more often the less ops you have. When there isn't any op online and something is happening, I feel that the community is being dealt a disservice because there were not enough volunteers to keep the channel patrolled throughout the day. Second, there is a philosophy on many wikis that you don't revoke access simply because one is inactive, as they may come out from under their rock in the future to become active again. While I have stated above that I have no intentions of being more active on Wikia proper as of now, that may change in the future. As far as IRC is concerned, I haven't really ever stopped being active, I've just been unable to contribute as much as I'd like due to the reasons I've stated above. Third, as you've said yourself you view me to be a level-headed individual, and I'm sure that many other regulars would also share your sentiment based on when I am actively participating in channel. Having more people like that in positions to put a stop to something spinning out of control can help resolve conflict in a way that hopefully does not drive anyone away from the community or cause excess drama, both of which negatively impact the community as a whole and can cause even more toxicity between the op handling the situation in a non-level-headed manner and the rest of the community. I hope that sufficiently answers your questions, and if you have any more feel free to ask. -- Skiz zerz  02:49, November 1, 2011 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. Thanks. Rappy 06:02, November 1, 2011 (UTC)