Forum:New IRC channel

Please see /Archive, /Votes For Op, and /Votes For +F for the archive, and votes for various roles

This is for those that use the #wikia channel on Freenode. The channel hasn't been used or supported by staff for some time now, and there have been a few disagreements about the channel administration. So, as staff aren't around to help with these, we've decided to remove ourselves officially and to redirect the channel to a new unofficial one.

The ops for this new channel need to be decided, and staff won't be part of that decision. This page is for the IRC regulars to decide how to choose ops, and then who to choose. Once that choice is made, I will hand over the new channel and redirect the old. So, over to you.... please let us know when the decision is final. Thanks -- sannse http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb32675/wikia/images/e/e9/WikiaStaff.png (help forum | blog) 16:49, October 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm assuming you won't be able to get wikia cloaks anymore? 1358  (Talk)  16:54, October 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * There won't be new ones, no. It's been pretty hard to get hold of them for a while anyway, I'm only on IRC for a short time in the (SF) evenings. I'll stay as GC to maintain existing cloaks and so on though -- sannse http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb32675/wikia/images/e/e9/WikiaStaff.png (help forum | blog) 17:20, October 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * I havn't seen many people who voiced a compliant about OPs in #wikia, but I understand the move if staff aren't ever going to be present (which has been the status quo for some time). In terms of ops for the new channel, Charit, Godisme, Vega and Myself are the people who I generally see using op who already have it, and I think can be trusted with it on the new channel, perhaps +o to some other regulars who are trusted as well, or someone I've missed? --  Random Time  17:48, October 28, 2011 (UTC)

Tis a shame to see that newer users will be unable to receive IRC cloaks to show their pride in Wikia and to help ensure they are who they say they are onwiki. It would appear the current ops have things under control, but I wouldn't oppose some regulars in the channel to receive +o as well. 19:38, October 28, 2011 (UTC)


 * As Zam said, the current OPs have things running pretty smoothly, and I'm not opposed to some regulars receiving +o, as long as they have a client, since webchat doesn't allow banning. –  Jä zz  i  20:12, October 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about, webclient allows banning. 21:19, October 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * Derp. I knew webchat didn't allow something, thought it was banning instead of /ignore. –  Jä zz  i  21:25, October 28, 2011 (UTC)


 * I would suggest Jäzzi, Monchoman45 and myself as the three of us are usually on at times that the others above aren't. Rappy 20:35, October 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * If I may, I'd like to put myself in the hat of suggestions. I'm on a good majority of the time lurking. 22:21, October 28, 2011 (UTC)


 * We don't need that many ops. My suggestion is this, myself, Charitwo and Randomtime, being the active administrators of community central, Vega Dark, being a trusted member of the VSTF and in a timezone not covered by the rest of us, and Monchoman45 who is usually on in the mornings, a time that most of the other ops are not on or not paying attention. While Rappy, Jazzi and Zam are trusted enough to receive +o, I don't see the necessity for it. From my experience on the channel, things are usually handled by charitwo, Randomtime or Vega and occasionally myself. Not a whole lot is missed and one of us can be pinged if something happens. So that is my suggestion.--
 * I disagree, the more ops the better to a reasonable extent. More ops ultimately means more coverage, and if there are trusted users willing to volunteer their time doing it... why not? I'd support all of the above mentioned people. 22:44, October 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe give trusted users +r to enable quieting? 1358  (Talk)  06:21, October 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * I suppose as I was mentioned in #wikia too (and I've mused about this myself too) I would be available as an well-experienced IRC channel administrator for whatever duties are needed. (: –Tm_T (Talk) 09:02, October 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry I'm a little late to this, technical difficulties. Webchat does allow full use of /mode, through a hack or two I could extend that to allow for a quick /op /mode +b-o. Alternatively, I could get a client to use as my banning client. Whichever works out better.

A couple of things: Firstly, don't forget you need an F as well as ops. Also remember that this is a brand new channel and the past organization does not have to be the same as the future... this is not an op decision, the channel has no ops yet :) And, while it's up to you how you make this decision, I'd love it if as many people as possible could be involved -- sannse http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb32675/wikia/images/e/e9/WikiaStaff.png  (help forum | blog)  06:18, October 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed, although I see the already mostly community-run team be in core of this. (: –Tm_T (Talk) 09:02, October 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * The people most likely to be on IRC are normally regulars on central as well, so it's a good mix, as far as +F goes - Charit seems the obvious choice if nobody has any other suggestions. I'd be happy giving Rappy, Jazzi, Tm_T op, I havn't had too much experience of Zam to know if he'd be a good candidate, but I'm sure others can give their opinion on that, I don't have any objections to him being op. --  Random Time  13:08, October 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd support VegaDark for +F personally, and I'd also be fine with Tm_T being an op. As I said above, the more the merrier (to a reasonable extent). 13:54, October 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no objections to any of those. Whatever works for everyone else.

After some discussion yesterday, I think most of us think Charitwo would be best for +F. With that we can work with Freenode staff about setting up a new cloak for new users and means of obtaining them. Most of us supported keeping the channel purpose mainly the same as it has been of late, a social place for the most part but a place users can come to receive help if they need it. If they need staff, we just direct them elsewhere. Most also believe that irc.wikia.com should be redirected to Special:Chat. As for Ops, I still believe we only need a handful but if others really want many ops, I am fine with that.--
 * I'm fine with Charitwo to have +F. The only issue I can see is if Wikia makes it an unofficial channel people will no longer go in there looking for help, which is what a lot of people do. Also, in some of the discussions on IRC many have stated that they will not sit in Special:Chat 24/7 to provide help to users since Chat has connection issues often. I support many Ops, since it doesn't really hurt to have more cookies in the cookie jar, it just sucks when there isn't any when you want one. 16:22, October 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * Charitwo seems the best bet for +F. And as for OPs:
 * Charit is normally always connected.
 * Randomtime has the timezone of Englandland so he's on when others aren't.
 * Vega is on when others aren't.
 * Zam, while normally connected, has connection issues.
 * Godisme is normally on, during class and goes to sleep later than the others in the eastern timezone.
 * Monch is normally on in the mornings, so that's good and I'm pretty sure he knows the controls.
 * Rappy is on pretty much all the times, but he's not always on on, so it might be some time for a response.
 * While I'm always connected on Jaz|away, I'm not always connected on my laptop, so I'm not on during the day due to school. But I have no life in the afternoon, but I sleep early.
 * –  Jä zz  i  16:46, October 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * We could also use ops who are east of England. Y'know, Oceanians, Asians and Eastern Europeans. Tm T and me both live in Finland and I'm usually online when Brits are in school/at work, Americans asleep and Australians sleeping as well. :P 1358  (Talk)  22:14, October 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd support Xd for op. 22:16, October 29, 2011 (UTC)


 * Trust in mine stalwart declaration when I state that I cannot disagree more with my esteemed colleague. Charitwo doth possess a mean spirit and temper which doth often flare in excess, leading to heinous acts of the kind which have rarely been seen in civilized society. He doth enjoy use of the gag, and believe firmly in use of the truncheon in lieu of words. He doth protesteth too much! Goodwood  Talk  | My Darthipedia   Edits  18:46, October 29, 2011 (UTC)


 * A couple of things, while Charitwo does have a temper, he has gotten much better with it, and is truly the best choice for +F.
 * And you need to template your sig. –  Jä zz  i  18:51, October 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * The fact that he has gotten better with his temper isn't a reason why he is the best choice for +F. Someone who can manage their temper in the first place is already doing better. 22:09, October 29, 2011 (UTC)


 * To a lesser degree, I agree with what Goodwood is saying. Charitwo is qualified on many grounds. He's clearly popular with the most active users and has been around the longest out of them. I just think he could be more considerate towards some of the users he warns or bans. How he handles trolls and spammers are fine. Users who join without the intention of causing trouble, but otherwise end up being disruptive or annoying and even regular users who unknowingly say/do mild stuff out-of-line often aren't made feel welcome by him. By no means is he a bad user, but if he's immediately put on top of the operators "hierarchy", I don't know if he'll ever work on improving this.
 * That said, better suggestions for +F aren't springing into my mind. If in the end, Charitwo is given +F responsibilities, I hope he will try to work on these. -- Deltaneos (talk) 19:51, October 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * I also agree somewhat. Charitwo tends to be uncommunicative and talks down to anyone who's not on his good side. About a week ago there were some joke kicks -- I'm not sure that Charitwo did the kicks, but his response afterwards was very off-putting, and he seemed to say that because staff no longer entered the channel, it was unofficial and thus there was no oversight or accountability on what he did. Putting him in charge of access rights on a completely unofficial channel does not sound like a good idea to me. I don't have any ideas for +F, but I don't think we should just go to Charitwo by default.
 * As for ops, I think the more the merrier: I trust most of the people in the channel, and there are no negative side effects of having more than needed. Also, I may be missing something, but why can't we keep the #wikia name? Cook Me Plox 20:13, October 29, 2011 (UTC)


 * People have stated above that they'd like the purpose of the channel to remain the same. I wholeheartedly agree. I come to #Wikia to help user with JS/CSS and wiki-formatting. The socializing aspect is a bonus. I do not want to see this channel lose its integrity and/or general purpose. Those above raise good points and I would like to see all opinions here addressed before a final opinion is made. Rappy 21:13, October 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * I am fine with the functionality of the channel remaining the same, but I think that we should consider allowing more socializing into it, especially given its new unofficial nature.
 * I also have concerns with Charitwo having +F, quite honestly. He has repeatedly shown that he considers his op actions above the general community, and refuses to discuss any kick or ban that he has made. I think that for an IRC channel relating to anything "wiki-ish", transparency should be a major goal. I am also concerned because his attitude and behaviour has been going on for years ( Quite a few of the opposing comments have similar concerns with his IRC behaviour ), and I doubt that it is going to change. If he does get the +F, then I'd ask that he allow for more transparency around kicks and bans, and also not just dismiss any concerns that are raised. 22:09, October 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * With so many people being opposed to Charitwo as +F, let's just have a simple vote for who gets the +F. I will list each person's name who is currently being considered for op, the person with the most votes gets +F, anyone can throw in another name if they want, just one vote for person though. Sign your name below the person you vote for.--
 * I don't have concerns with Charitwo having +F really; I doubt he'd take over the channel; but he really needs to improve his IRC behavior. I for one have seen many not-so-pleasant confrontations involving charitwo, and he actually /remove'd (force-part) me from the channel while I was asleep, which I do not consider appropriate for an IRC operator. 1358  (Talk)  22:18, October 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * I likewise agree that he wouldn't completely destroy anything, but I also see this new channel as a way to improve from what we had before - thus why I'd like to have some actual improvement, not more of the same. There is no indication that Charitwo is going to change his behaviour, and as such I'd like to look at someone else's candidacy. 22:21, October 29, 2011 (UTC)

If people have concerns they should bring them to me. I've been a channel operator in #wikia for a little over 4 years. Originally people had concerns with me being too harsh with moderation, so I eased back a lot and basically let other ops handle things unless nobody was around. I am welcome to completely changing this new channel however the #wikia regulars want it to change to and like the way the discussion about the direction of the purpose of the channel is going.

Cook,1358: Myself (and a few others) occasionally jokingly devoice others or sometimes joke-kick them, so please do not single me out for this when I'm not the only one doing it (Dantman, Eulalia, Joey, VegaDark, Randomtime, Godisme, and others) Sorry if this seems like a callout but I don't feel its fair that I'm the only being put on display for it when others who have done the same are also being voted for. If someone messaged me and was like OK I don't like that, please don't do it, I would immediately cease. As I did with Rappy when he took up issue with the aforementioned joke kicks, I haven't done so since. Although if I happened to have been voted into +F, I wouldn't be devoicing or joke-kicking anyone for any reason, since as the "channel owner" I should be setting an example for the other channel operators. -- 04:04, October 30, 2011 (UTC)
 * My problem was not so much the joke kick but how you dealt with Rappy afterwards. Cook Me Plox 06:29, October 30, 2011 (UTC)
 * Eh, I was just messing around and he took it like I was negatively targeting him. Other than him thinking I am just being mean or something, I have no qualms. Like anyone else who teases him (e.g. betting Rappy Dollars, Rappy's fault, etc) it was meant to be harmless, he seemed to take it otherwise. I personally would like an amicable resolution. -- 06:37, October 30, 2011 (UTC)
 * Looking back on what you said in #wikia afterwards, it did not seem to me to be good-hearted or simply teasing. If you mess with someone and they don't like it, saying "I don't have time to argue with a grumpy guss, please find something more productive to do" or "I have no time to bother with the likes of you. You argue for the sake of arguing. Bugger off." doesn't help. You also appeared to justify it by saying that the channel was quasi-unofficial. That "incident" is very indicative of the problems that you have communicating with people who bother you. It's not something I like seeing from +o, let alone +F. Cook Me Plox 07:09, October 30, 2011 (UTC)
 * I was teasing. But I was annoyed because he followed that up by arguing just to argue while I was trying to help someone in #wikia-vstf. And as I said above, I'd much rather avoid situations like that entirely, especially when they interfere with op or vstf duties. Let alone "jokes" in general were I to be "owner" of a new channel. That and he's never approached me personally to resolve the issue, something I'd like to do. -- 07:20, October 30, 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think we can always expect the "OK I don't like that, please don't do it" attitude from users you've just kicked/banned/silenced. When people think they've been mistreated, their good side is most often not going to show and they are likely to be angry. As an op, you need to be prepared for this and be patient with them. Cool-down blocks have much more negative effects than positive ones in my opinion. Even if the user is "wrong", "rehabilitation" is needed rather than "punishment".
 * While it is good, that you are willing to change your attitude when put in a position of higher responsibility. Saying you'll set a better example because you've been selected as the "owner", isn't quite the same as saying you've set a good so you should be the "owner".
 * My biggest issues with you are you tend to be cabal oriented and unwelcoming, regardless or whether these are intentional or not.
 * Regarding the "unwelcoming" problems, there was a somewhat recent incident involving a user, who was probably the most helpful person in the channel at the time. They said that they found it funny when people used the channel for something it wasn't intended for [I can't remember exactly]. Your response was something along the lines of don't ever show that attitude again if you value your position in this channel. You could have easily taken the "OK I don't like that, please don't do it" approach you mentioned above. (Even more recently you made a similar comment to someone on Skype.) A few days later you even temporarily silenced that user without notice for very minimal involvement in minor Pokémon roleplaying that other users had begun. Another helpful former regular user has left in the past over you moderating this way. Your attitude to users who aren't regular hasn't been much better either. Being unwelcoming is never a good idea, but if this channel does become unofficial, I don't know much advertising for it Wikia are going to leave, so we may have fewer users and we don't want to be scaring them away.
 * Regarding "cabal" issues, like with the Rappy incident, where you say he should talk to you personally, although he was stating his problems into the channel. With many of your +q and +b actions in the past, you've said it's only the business of you the person affected. For other blocks, you've said the block sticks once you've got the approval of other op, admin or staff.
 * Do you think these are legitimate problems and are you willing to work on them?
 * Please don't take this as me targeting you specifically, there are other candidates who've shown similar problems, in my opinion. I would like to address those two. I don't personally dislike you or any of the other candidates. But for the channel as a whole, I think the person "in charge" needs to be more diplomatic. -- Deltaneos (talk) 11:42, October 30, 2011 (UTC)
 * It is also very hard to tell what consists of "teasing" and what consists of you being in a bad mood, feeling like abusing your op, etc. A slightly older example (July 3rd 2011) in which you kicked rappy for saying "sekrit - fail... you deop'd your clone" with the rational "your comment is unnecessary" is slightly scary. Three users then stated their complaints publicly about the action, and all of those complaints were dismissed. That is not something I want to see coming from any op, never mind a +F. I have the logs of this incident and am willing to publicly release them if Charitwo, Rappy, GreenReaper, Jazzi, Skizzerz and VegaDark are OK with it. 14:25, October 30, 2011 (UTC)
 * I think this is the most vocal I've ever seen you, I had to open my own reply in a new window just to make sure I've addressed everything.
 * I agree with that, although each scenario is different. We have to differentiate between users who may not know the rules and users who show up clearly to cause trouble and know they're in the wrong by doing it. What do you determine to be the difference "punishment" and "rehabilitation". Additionally, since Freenode introduced the muting system, I have preferred to use that rather than simply just barring someone from the channel.
 * Oh, I know. I just didn't want to sound like I'm saying "OK, I'll do this and this so you should vote for me" because it sounds like canvassing. I'd rather just simply say what people can expect out of me so they can make an informed decision.
 * You make several good points here and I'd like to work with them. I don't remember the specific scenarios in general but a lot of times I'm not aware of "how" I'm just focused on getting the channel back "in order". But I will do well to watch how I come across in general in future situations. I do agree an unwelcome approach is not desirable in a channel that is deemed by Wikia to be unofficial.
 * I said I preferred users to contact me privately regarding a decision I made because it prevents the channel from being disrupted further. While this also prevents transparency in dealing with the user, I prefer it because it returns the channel back to "Normal" (whatever that may be at the time). What we can look at doing is making an -ops channel to where users can discuss things with the lot of us while still keeping the main channel clutter free.
 * I'm willing to work with everyone involved here. I want this channel transition to be an improvement rather than something negative. I was worried of the outcome when I saw the decision to close the channel. Regardless of chat's current stability I still prefer IRC as the medium of off-wiki communication. It makes it easy to separate "wiki-work" from a more social and relaxed atmosphere (speaking of IRC in general, not just #wikia).
 * Oh no, and I agree with you completely. As said above I much prefer working out issues right away rather than letting them linger and have to deal with something like this. This is why I said above I wish Rappy would have been willing to work out something with me on an interpersonal level (which is why I said private communication). I'm not trying to reduce transparency around the management of the channel at all. When everything is setup we need to look into something like I mentioned above where users can discuss decisions, quiets, bans, rules, or otherwise. My main concern is keeping the primary channel in a state of normalcy. -- 17:12, October 30, 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I can see that. I remember that and that particular incident was me just messing with Rappy, I wasn't angry or upset with him at all. And I didn't mean to come off as dismissive, it was just that I was looking at it as "another joke". I've always operated under the mindset that I'm just like everyone else until it's time to use op status to handle something. Mixing the two is often confusing and I agree it may not be the wisest. -- 17:12, October 30, 2011 (UTC)
 * Charitwo - When someone does something in channel such as quieting, or devoicing someone, all the people in channel see it and are affected by it. Insisting that the resolution be done with private messages has two effects. One is that it lacks transparency to others who are also there when the incident occurs. The second is that no final resolution is public - when the originating incident was. If its a joke - a simple - "Sorry guy was just joking" is appropriate and actually makes people think more of someone who can and will apologize. The other actions have the opposite effect, making you look as if it's personal attacks and that you need to hide behind being a sysop. Honestly, there are times other people are rude to people coming for help, so really everyone needs to think about HOW they are responding to questions in the channel. I may not say very much in channel, but I do NOTICE what is said.Surriela 19:13, October 30, 2011 (UTC)

What really bothers me is... you've said it here like 3 times "I'd rather users PM me and contact me directly regarding something you did". I've been in the channel for a year. I've seen rash decisions made by you and others. This is the first time I've heard this from you. To me, it seems like you say whatever you know people want you to say, just like in your previous 4 RfA's. I have a hard time believing what you say. If the above really was the issue, why did you never say "It was a joke, sorry, bad taste I guess."? You never apologize for an incident you cause especially when it causes an issue. 9/10 incidents like above could have been dismissed completely with an apology from you and never resulted in such a distaste.

The other issue I have with you is a quote from above, I will paste it here... "Although if I happened to have been voted into +F, I wouldn't be de-voicing or joke-kicking anyone for any reason, since as the "channel owner" I should be setting an example for the other channel operators." Again, if that was the case, you'd not be doing this sort of stuff now. +o are supposed to set an example for all the regular users in the channel. This example you display is that 'It's OK to kick, de-voice and quiet people that say something you don't agree with.' I've felt I've had to keep my opinions to myself and/or guard what I say (that is usually relatively harmless) so I don't get quieted when I am participating in a conversation.

As much as I hate to say it, but I think Uberfuzzy said it best in your 2nd RfA. "I know Wikia != IRC, but people are more true to themselves in IRC because it is fleeting. They don't leave such a trail (unlike all the logs/history on wikis). I know you say they 'were limited issues' or 'resolved later', they shouldn't come up in the first place. Personal issues/bias are not qualities i would want someone in any sort of power to have. It's nothing personal, you are very helpful, just would want someone a little more level headed in such a role." That was almost 4 years ago... and I don't think your attitude has changed much in this respect.

I have nothing against you as a person (despite what you may think). We all joke around with people from time to time in #Wikia... it makes the days go by smoother. But imagine how it would be if Pierogi had +o and quieted everyone every time someone said "Poor Pierogi". Or if I quieted every time someone said I owe'd someone money. This is precisely the reason I don't PM privately when issues occur. I should not be the only one that disagrees with the actions taken place in the channel, but it seems I was the only one to voice it when issues arose. If that prevents me from getting a higher role in the channel, so be it. I have that right to stand up for what I believe in. I've only ever (and still do) wanted #Wikia to strive as a place for experienced help. This is why I am so passionate about these types of situations. Other users looking on when these issues arise also feel alienated. If you recall, Cook_Me_Plox was not involved in the conversation after the situation he described above, but apparently still remembers it like it was yesterday. These issues leave a prolonged effect on those that witness them as well. Rappy 18:45, October 30, 2011 (UTC)
 * It's really just silly that you say you will change if you get the +F flag. You have had rights on the channel for years, and you should have set an example then. You are saying what people want to hear, but your actions speak louder than your words. Cook Me Plox 20:03, October 30, 2011 (UTC)
 * Try me. This forum has already changed a lot in how I handle myself as a regular op. -- 02:35, October 31, 2011 (UTC)
 * People have been telling you these things, in IRC and elsewhere, for years. Why does it take requesting the +F flag to make you change your ways? Cook Me Plox 02:50, October 31, 2011 (UTC)
 * Not +F, the discussion in general. -- 02:56, October 31, 2011 (UTC)
 * That doesn't answer my question. Why do you only decide to change now when there's something at stake for you? Cook Me Plox 02:58, October 31, 2011 (UTC)
 * Because people in general are expressing concerns, half of the people commenting have never brought up a concern before. As I said earlier in this discussion, before any voting even began, that I was completely open to changing the channel's direction in purview of the communities wishes (which includes how I handle myself). -- 03:05, October 31, 2011 (UTC)
 * I suppose a change is better late than never. I don't see why you need the community's wishes to alter how you handle yourself. Cook Me Plox 03:13, October 31, 2011 (UTC)
 * It's more of a perspective thing. Like for example I just thought Rappy was more easily annoyed than others, and you've never brought up anything before, etc. -- 03:15, October 31, 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Cook Me Plox 03:17, October 31, 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I thought now would be the better time to voice my opinions on charitwo, ask me a few months ago, and I would of jumped heavily on the oppose bandwagon, but I think I've changed my mind now... I used to hate Charitwo (or atleast, strongly dislike him from every encounter I had with him)... I used to see him as this angry mean person, he would occasionally 'yell' at me over VSTF stuff, and for being off topic in the wikia channel, but I think I over rated that a fair bit, and to be honest, I think when he says that he's listened to complaints and become more laid back. More recently I've only been kicked/banned once in the last year or so, and thats because my connection was flodding while I was asleep (infact, I believe that was on chat so ^.^). Those encounters, he's been laid back and friendly about it, which has opened my eyes a lot more... I no longer believe that he's a big bad wolf, and I understand he's human, and not a super bot created by Grunny! So, these days, I'd be happy to support op/+F for him, providing the channel will continue to be fairly laid back... --Lewis Cawte (Talk - Contact) 21:36, October 30, 2011 (UTC)

Smuff has a question; why do we need to make #wikia-unofficial? Wouldn't it be easier to keep #wikia and then make a second room like #wikia-staff or #wikia-contact? --Smuff[ The cake is a lie  ] 21:59, October 30, 2011 (UTC)
 * Something to do with Freenode policies, #wikia would still be considered an official channel and the group contact (sannse) is closing it and redirecting it to what freenode considers unofficial (##wikia) -- 02:35, October 31, 2011 (UTC)

concerns
I'm very worried about how this is going so far. It doesn't seem so far that any part of the decisions on how to vote, who is eligible to vote, or even whether this should be decided via a vote, has been made by the whole group of channel users. In at least one case, we've seen an existing op making firm "you cannot vote" decision on someone who has used the channel and would like to be part of the future channel. As I said, this is not an op decision. If you have ops in #wikia, that does not give you any extra voice or extra decision making abilities here. Please, let's work out how the whole channel can be properly represented here (and yes, that includes people who have felt excluded from #wikia in the past.) -- sannse http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb32675/wikia/images/e/e9/WikiaStaff.png (help forum | blog)  22:27, October 30, 2011 (UTC)


 * As I suggested yesterday... would it be possible to have bitmonk as +F? This would probably solve the issue. Note, he would not hold +F as a staffer, but rather than an IRC user? (In case you didn't know, bitmonk is the one who you need to rant to if wikia is down :P) 1358  (Talk)  06:25, October 31, 2011 (UTC)
 * Xd, why not add his name to the +F page at Forum:New IRC channel/Votes For +F? — Spike Toronto  06:42, October 31, 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if a) he wants to and b) if that's even possible, considering he's staff. 1358  (Talk)  06:49, October 31, 2011 (UTC)
 * a) You can ask, and b) I see no reason why not. –Tm_T (Talk) 06:54, October 31, 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. — Spike Toronto  06:56, October 31, 2011 (UTC)

Can I simply make a comment to the votes on my name in the Archive forum.
 * "Not too sure about the ability to look at situations without bringing in self emotions which can affect a clear and correct judgment."
 * I have not brought my negative emotions into much of anything recently.
 * "Concerns with maturity."
 * I don't get where you're finding these concerns with my lack of maturity, as you don't use the channel often. I've gotten much better with my maturity issues. Yes, there are times when I'm immature, but it is those times when I'm joking around.

Additionally, I am trusted with the chat moderator right and I have been OPped in #wikia when charitwo has had to leave and no one else was there. I don't make rash decisions any longer, I warn people enough times and I know what I'm doing.

Apologies if I shouldn't have commented on this, I've been without internet and couldn't voice anything earlier and just saw it now. –  Jä zz  i  15:23, October 31, 2011 (UTC)

Vote time
I don't believe one week will be enough time to be given for the voting, so I suggest 2 weeks. Opinions? –Tm_T (Talk) 19:41, October 31, 2011 (UTC)
 * That's fine with me. I'll change it. Cook Me Plox 20:48, October 31, 2011 (UTC)

We hit two weeks since the forums were created on Sunday. Is everyone still okay with closing them at that time?--
 * No problem. 00:30, November 11, 2011 (UTC)

General questions
Would it be okay if we added a section for general questions on the votes for op page and one on the votes for +F page for each candidate to answer individually in their own sections if they wish? -- Deltaneos (talk) 01:27, November 1, 2011 (UTC)


 * That would be fine. I think that only benefits everyone.--

Voting eligibility
I've stricken out the votes of Happy65, Technology Wizard, Rayous, Bob Bricks, and DarkMetroid567 due to little or no activity in the channel. A short discussion with other IRC users showed that most agreed, but we also agreed it would be best to discuss activity guidelines before removing any votes completely, which is what this section is for.

Technology Wizard has only been in the channel once, to discuss adoptions with charitwo; Rayous joined and left within a minute; and Bob Bricks and DarkMetroid567 have not been seen at all (at least as far as anyone can remember).


 * This is what I have been saying. If you do not use the channel, you cannot make a fair vote. A simple assessment to see if they were on is using GreenReaper's !seen command.--


 * The logs that Tm_T gave weren't Technology Wizard, I'll post the ban log of #wikia-pokemon again if you'd like. And Bob Bricks was a join and quit as well. –  Jä zz  i  14:52, November 3, 2011 (UTC)


 * I also struck out Phillycj, who along with DarkMetroid567 apparently use nicks that are difficult to attach to their names. Xd found this which I assume is relevant, because I can't read it on my walrus computer.
 * What if they want to be involved in the new channel? If they have invalid arguments, then it should be very easy to discredit them using actual evidence. I don't like this restriction of the vote, especially since the people voting are people who want to be active in the new channel for the most part. 16:34, November 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * They should be involved in the old channel first, as only wanting to be involved in the new channel they don't know how the people work in the IRC. –  Jä zz  i  16:40, November 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * These are people who have never expressed a desire to be involved in the channel at all, as far as anyone can tell. They don't necessarily know how the candidates administrate or use their powers. You (ajr), for example, are not always in the channel, but you know how the mechanics are currently and want them to change, hence why you're voting. But someone who joins and parts a minute later shouldn't be considered someone who can vote. They have little if any relevant knowledge of what they're voting about and who they're voting for. We have to draw a line somewhere, and this seems like the best place to draw it.
 * I'm a bit torn on this, but I suppose the following is bit of both what ajr and monchoman are saying: it would be benefitical to have votes from people who cares and wants to be in the channel, especially if there hzs been a reson why they haven't been in channel now; allowing votes from people who have no interest to contribute on the channel shouldn't be deciding. Finding the line between these isn't easy, but I hope we can avoid vote harvesting or votes based on no real experience and still gather a wide userbase contribution. (: –Tm_T (Talk) 17:43, November 3, 2011 (UTC)

There's absolutely no need to remove their votes. Since we are now using an RfA-style, consensus determined process rather than a strict vote, the closer can take the activity and knowledge of the users into consideration when determining who gets access to the rights. This is a bad idea. Cook Me Plox 17:38, November 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * In a normal RfA (on Wikia), random people who have nothing to do with the situation aren't allowed to cast their opinion in the support or oppose sections. It's misleading clutter - I can go to any wiki and give an opinion on an RfA I know nothing about and unless someone recognizes that I have no business giving my opinion there, I influence the decision. Personally, I think that's wrong. Why should someone who isn't affected by the decision be allowed to be a part of it? Enough supports or opposes given in this way can offset the opinions of people who will have to live with the final decision, and the opinions of those who know what they're voting for.
 * If you do that but have a good point, then you should be included in the discussion. If your point is terrible then it is easy to counter it with actual evidence, and the end result can actually be a stronger push in the opposite direction that you voted for. These votes should be about presenting ideas, and if someone who isn't active at all has an idea, why should they be stopped from sharing it? As I said, if they are clueless then it should be easy to rebuke their arguments. 18:29, November 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * Moncho, I don't know what RfA process you're using, but that's definitely not the way we should do things. Anyone can leave a cohesive argument one way or the other, and it doesn't matter if they have an established presence within that community. If you feel that those people should have no part in the discussion, that's fine. But the person who closes all of these requests will be familiar with who is a big part of the IRC community, and who is not, and they will take that into consideration when determining the weight of individual votes. There's no reason to cross them out at this stage. That's the whole point of consensus. Cook Me Plox 19:21, November 3, 2011 (UTC)

In agreement with Monchoman45 in this one!! They offered nothing substantial to the voting and even then, have still yet to show any interest in the channel since voting!! In fact none of their points seemed relevant as they don't use the channel and the opinions they presented made it look like they did, which is just plain silly!! The votes I see on any Wiki only allow substantial Users to vote, not people who just come to offer their opinions on issues that don't concern them!! These votes are always deleted!! Of course, I've only been on properly organized Wikis!! SunXia  (Chat)  20:18, November 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * I would consider my home wiki properly organized. We have a strong consensus policy so we don't need to resort to crossing out votes. Cook Me Plox 20:52, November 3, 2011 (UTC)


 * Cook is from the RuneScape Wiki, which has been Wikia's most active wiki for quite some time now (though I think we're only second atm). I'd definitely call it properly organized. Also, Wikipedia and just about every Wikimedia project allows people to vote even if they aren't active members of the particular community - are those site not properly organized too? 22:18, November 3, 2011 (UTC)

If people are not allowed to vote just because they weren't active in the old channel, then it should be added somewhere. The only reason I voted was because I was going to join the new channel and interact more, but I didn't know that you had to be active on the old one.


 * Wasn't restricting votes what lead to this new system of decisions? So why would we be changing it back despite it not working last time? 23:35, November 3, 2011 (UTC)


 * I think the main issue here is people voting for only a select few because they've had dealings with that person before. They end up not voting for others in the channel since they never go there and/or don't know the other candidates.
 * I am also torn between allowing them to vote and not allowing them to vote. As in the case of CoD4, there were several votes placed for him from people that knew him from #Callofduty and the Call of Duty wiki. I think it was unanimous that the vote(s) be removed because the voters were only voting for one candidate and seemed unable/unwilling to make informed decisions on all candidates. Therefore, it becomes a biased vote. I could easily solicit votes for myself from other wikis and therefore landslide the voting process, but those voters would not know the other candidates either, nor vote for others since they don't frequent the channel to know about them.
 * The wiki and IRC are not equal. Nor is one channel in IRC the same as another channel in IRC. Operators can act completely different in one channel as they do in others (as per channel rules) the same as they can act different from one wiki to the next. As for this voting process, it should be done by those who can make informed decisions about the candidates and how they act and present themselves in #Wikia. We were told that it should be an open vote, but I don't feel these votes should be valid under these circumstances. Rappy 01:10, November 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * So, if they don't know what they're talking about, then it must be easy to provide evidence against what they are saying. If that is so, then there is no harm in allowing them since nobody will agree with their statements after they have been disproven. Also, I must disagree with your comments about operators acting differently in different channels - ultimately, they will act the same under pressure, and general trends in behaviour can be noticed. 01:26, November 4, 2011 (UTC)


 * Never seen general trends anywhere with many of the candidates getting accused of such!! SunXia   (Chat)  01:33, November 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * Alright, let me rephrase this then with a very overboard example. If a user has gone and vandalized a wiki using multiple proxies and has about 200 blocked accounts, then came and requested op, would an admin who blocked some of those accounts have some useful input to add to the discussion? That's an overblown example, but I'm saying that some outside opinions can be good and even appreciated. 01:47, November 4, 2011 (UTC)

Opinions are all well and good but biased/unqualified votes shouldn't be counted when they previously expressed no interest in IRC until they realized they could vote against someone they have a grudge against merely because they were punished for disobeying rules!! If their opinions were disallowed, then the votes would have been removed completely, not just stroked out!! Otherwise, any person that had been temporarily banned (with good reason) by any of the nominees, but had no interest at all in the IRC, could just realize a vote is talking place and decide to oppose them and there are many that are petty like that!! Initially I was against nullifying the biased and clearly not interested in IRC votes but after seeing the sound arguments and the petty behavior they showed then sure, have an opinion but unless they are going to prove themselves with the IRC and with mature votes then I agree with the actions taken!! Otherwise it would be overrun by bitter members who don't obey rules and have show no desire to partake in the IRC!! Actions speak louder than words of "I do have interest in it!!" SunXia  (Chat)  02:00, November 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * You are not only assuming bad faith, but also making a terribly broad generalization on the type of users who are voting on this. A few things:
 * No votes are unbiased. Almost every person comes into a situation with some sort of perspective. This isn't a bad thing, but rather allows for discussion and ultimately consensus. The neutrality needs to come from the +F/'crat that actually closes each request as successful or not.
 * You imply that, because there is the chance that someone will vote out of spite, we shouldn't allow voting to people not active in the channel. This is a terrible generalization, and policy should never be made per what could happen.
 * Regardless of the conditions of the vote, its the argument that is presented which should matter. As I've said before, if someone with no previous experience comes and makes a valid point, why shouldn't they be able to say it? You cannot generalize all such comments as worthless. 02:43, November 4, 2011 (UTC)

So, we’re right back where we started, with current #wikia ops trying to perpetuate their positions as we migrate to ##wikia. If you are afraid that an open process might see you move to the new channel without the rights you currently possess at the old channel, then you should not be standing for election. If you cannot stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. I cannot imagine the sort of thinking that leads any of us to throw out shared, fundamental principles that have become instilled in us from living in democratic societies, and participation in wiki culture. This is a sad day for Wikians. — Spike Toronto  05:11, November 4, 2011 (UTC)


 * As I don't currently have access to the channel, I don't see how that applies to me. Honestly, I couldn't care less on who is allowed to vote or not. My issues are of the mindset of members from CallofDuty Wiki coming to Admin Tools wiki to vote for an RfA on Admin Tools. How would you handle a bunch of people showing up that you have no clue who they are supporting someone RfA'ing there? Obviously, there has to be a line drawn somewhere. If those votes to an RfA were allowed, how difficult is it for someone to get 20 of their friends to come and vote for them on the RfA at Admin Tools? Like I said above, one could easily pad their votes by asking friends to come vote for them or push and agenda by having people come specifically to oppose someone else. Where is the line drawn? Rappy 05:29, November 4, 2011 (UTC)


 * A lot of wikis have a straight edit requirement to vote. The CoD wiki has a 50 mainspace edit requirement to vote, if you do not have that, your vote will probably not be counted in a total, and may be ignored in a consensus, at the discretion of the administrator mediating the discussion. --Callofduty4 09:30, November 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah same with Bleach, if you want to vote there you have to be an active member with substantial edits each month!! When it comes to Rollback, only those with Rollback can vote!! I prefer it that way, makes sure only good members can vote, and actual proper members can vote!! People may think it isn't very democratic but I don't vote in Spanish politics when I go there for a holiday or in American politics when I "express interest" in moving there but do nothing about it!! SunXia   (Chat)  15:58, November 4, 2011 (UTC)

^Per Rappy!! And I'm not sitting in any vote but obviously I still have concerns given what I've already witnessed!! With anything on Wikia, or anywhere, a line must be drawn somewhere!! Gross generalization or not, it's already happened and will continue to happen!! Granted not everyone will do it, in the same way not everyone is a vandal, but it will happen and thus their biased and uncaring vote will cancel out somebody's vote who is actually interested in the channel and has proven themselves as such!! C'est la vie, such is life, there must always be measures to stop the people with bad intentions!! By the way in case anyone is taking me the wrong way, I always use "!!" at the end of anything I am saying!! It has been pointed out to me to address this!! SunXia  (Chat)  06:51, November 4, 2011 (UTC)


 * First of all, I was the one who started this and I'm not an op on the channel. The others involved were Jazzi, Xd, Tm T (who generally opposed) and Vega (who only did a !seen for a user or two, and made no comment about votes). Of those people, only Vega currently has op access on the channel. The supports and opposes actually seem fairly evenly spread; I don't think any of us have anything substantial to gain by removing these votes. The concern is that local matters are local, not global - the Portugese can't vote for the American president, because the Portugese are not involved. Similarly, we have a group of users who are not involved that are attempting to vote. I personally have no problem with them making comments; if you check the pages, you'll see that none of the comments have been stricken out. They may raise their issues, but when it comes down to who becomes an op and who doesn't, I don't think we should have entirely third parties with no connection to the issue whatsoever casting a support or oppose.

Various things relating to ops after the channel is established
So, once the channel is up, there is the obvious question of what happens to ops then. I'd like to see:
 * A page/forum where ops can be reviewed in case of potential abuse.
 * Ops still being appointed by community consensus, not cabal decision. Maybe it can be a part of the above page/forum? Same applies to +F.
 * Transparency in regards to op actions. I'd like to see ops being willing to explain their kicking/banning rational always, to whoever wants to know. This irc channel is associated with wikis, and as such I think that the same transparency should exist on it as on wikis.

Just a few thoughts, please discuss. 18:09, November 3, 2011 (UTC)


 * I find Ajr's thoughts on this quite good in general, transparency to the community etc. –Tm_T (Talk) 06:59, November 4, 2011 (UTC)

I think these are some good ideas. Helps to run the channel more efficiently and smoothly. --Callofduty4 09:44, November 4, 2011 (UTC)


 * I have no objections to these.
 * Per Moncho. 00:30, November 11, 2011 (UTC)

Please summarize
Talk about a wall of text. What was the result of all this? -- <span style="border-bottom:1px dotted; cursor:help;" title="Who?">Fandyllic (talk &middot; contr) 11 Nov 2011 2:50 PM Pacific


 * Reading is fundamental. Besides, the summary is basically in the first post by sannse. Rappy 21:52, November 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * Per Rappy, although it is a text wall, it's not like it's impossible to read. The point is, new IRC channel, need OPs and founder. Please don't vote in the forums as we've never seen you in the channel. –  Jä zz  i  21:55, November 11, 2011 (UTC)