Forum:New IRC channel/Votes For +F

Since the last several attempts at a vote have broken down, let's try this. This will be done RfA style. Each candidate will have a section with support, oppose and comments sub sections. No neutral section. If you are neutral on a candidate, just don't support or oppose them and just say why in the comments. Discuss why each person would or would not make a good candidate.

As a general guideline, successful candidates should get at least 85% support. If no one receives 85%, the candidate with the most support will gain the flag. After two weeks, the votes will be closed by a neutral user.

Comments
I'd like to withdraw this entry for +F and show the participants and community that I'm not just telling them what they want to hear and gladly continue as a long-standing channel operator. -- 03:39, October 31, 2011 (UTC)

Randomtime

 * Support
 * 1) - Active, trustworthy and has shown in the past an ability to moderate #wikia appropriately. --Callofduty4 18:09, October 31, 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) - I've seen him in action many times and can trust his ability to use the tools well.  18:41, October 31, 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) - Per CoD4 and ajr. Cpl.Bohater 20:46, October 31, 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) - Per above. —  Wogan  ( talk ) 01:31, November 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) - All round trustworthy person. --Smuff[  The cake is a lie  ] 01:38, November 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) - Per above. (: –Tm_T (Talk)# 14:20, November 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * 7) - Per ajr. 16:37, November 1, 2011 (UTC)#
 * 8) - Per above. --Lord of Dark 20:00, November 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) - Per above. --Lord of Dark 20:00, November 1, 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose

VegaDark

 * Support
 * 1) - Active, trustworthy and has shown in the past an ability to moderate #wikia appropriately. --Callofduty4 18:09, October 31, 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) - he is active and has a good track record of using the tools appropriately.  18:41, October 31, 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) - Probably not a walrus. Making good faith vote here. -- 20:56, October 31, 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) - Per Charit --  Random  Time  21:01, October 31, 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) Per Charitwo Cpl.Bohater 21:04, October 31, 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) - Per the above comments. —  Wogan  ( talk ) 01:31, November 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * 7) --Smuff[  The cake is a lie  ] 01:39, November 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * 8) - Per above. (: –Tm_T (Talk) 14:20, November 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * 9) - Per charitwo. 16:37, November 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * 10) - Per above. --Lord of Dark</b> 20:01, November 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) - Per above. --Lord</b> of</b> Dark</b> 20:01, November 1, 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose

Godisme

 * Support
 * 1) - Godisme is active, helpful and mature. I don't see any reason he wouldn't help the channel with these flags. Cpl.Bohater 20:47, October 31, 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) - Trustworthy with a history of good on-wiki and on-IRC moderation decisions --  Random  Time  21:01, October 31, 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) - Despite concerns, I believe Godisme is more than qualified for the job. While he can make snap decisions, I generally find them to be correct, or nearly correct. There are, of course, cases where he makes the wrong decision, but this is bound to happen to anyone.

- I'm glad that we switched to this voting system, so I can actually give a good reason for opposing rather than just "concerns with experience", which really wasn't fair to him. I have two concerns with Godisme receiving the +F, one that directly relates to his use of the tools and one that relates to how he acts with the tools. These concerns may result from my Wikimedian ideals of what a wiki should be, but I still consider them to be valid ones and they should be considered.
 * Oppose

My concerns around his use of the tools is mainly regarding his hesitation to involve a wider community in various processes. I fear that he might +op people without proper consensus, or obtain consensus from a small group of users who do not represent the wider community. I've seen a couple of examples of this, but the most recent one was when he removed my vote from the previous discussion because he and charitwo decided that I wasn't active enough to vote.

My concerns over how he will act are more minor, but still important points. The first concern I have is actually his username, and how he uses it. His signature could easily be seen as offensive to someone who was religious, and I'd personally like to see a bit more sensitivity around that. Wikia obviously has users of a wide variety of faith groups, and I personally think that any admin/op/+F should be taking that into account. An example of what I view as insensitivity on your part would be here, in which you do not allow a user to modify your username in an way which might have made them more comfortable.

I also have some concerns about your lack of knowledge of what consists of a conflict of interest, and why it should be avoided. On Wikimedia, a COI is a very big deal and I've seen people desysopped over them. To put it plainly, an administrator/op should never take action in a case in which they have a personal opinion in the matter, or would somehow gain from it.

Feel free to reply, because I am more than willing to consider your side of the story on any of these points. 23:33, October 31, 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you give some examples of Godisme taking action in a situation you beleive is a COI, or provide some more detail on why you think this is an issue? --  Random Time  23:37, October 31, 2011 (UTC)
 * The exact quote was "Whether you consider it a conflict of interest or not, you objectively do not meet the qualifications to vote". A conflict of interest is very easy to see, especially in that case when he removed a vote against him. I do not have other examples as I am not that active here, but I still am rather concerned about him performing similar actions, and think that it is something which he should take into consideration. 23:47, October 31, 2011 (UTC)


 * There was the instance where he kickbanned Xd1358 from Chat. When he got an okay from Jäzzi and I think Charitwo, he was adamant that his decision stuck. A number of other users opposed the kickban and while Xd tried appealing the block, Godisme kept trying to dismiss him, insisting the discussion was over and threatened to extend the length of the ban if he persisted. When defending his decision to other users, he said something along the lines of the ops' opinions were what were important and that Jäzzi was as good as an op. He then took it on himself to give her the chatmod right. It's not so much that I oppose Jäzzi being a chatmod, but I don't like the circumstances she was given the right under.
 * There is also the recent issue where he decided adj's vote was invalid and removed it because he, Charitwo and VegaDark decided that only regulars of the current channel should be eligible to vote. -- Deltaneos (talk) 00:16, November 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * That was bad judgment, my comment was clouded by opinion. An open vote is much better...and NOT in table form. -- 00:19, November 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * Delta, the situation with Xd was resolved. We both apologized to each other and bot admitted that we could have handled things better. He agreed that he was provoking me and I agreed that I should not have been so harsh in how I handled him. Jazzi was not given chat mod because of that though. Jazzi was given chat mod because charitwo had been off for the day, Moncho and Vega had not been around for a few days and RT is in a different timezone. That meant we were low on chat mods. The next logical choice to make chat mod then was Jazzi. We even had the joke rule "Don't annoy Jazzi" in place long before that so when I needed another chat mod, she was the best choice.--


 * Charitwo: The issue isn't with your stances on who is and isn't eligible to vote. It's moreso that he got the opinions of two others users and decided that their opinions were above those of the rest of the community.
 * God: I am glad you two worked it out in the end. I hope next time, you do take the concerns of the people opposing into account and are more willing to discuss the appeal up front. -- Deltaneos (talk) 00:37, November 1, 2011 (UTC)


 * Can't say I see why his username is a problem. It certainly wasn't for staff when I had him appointed as a central admin. Wasn't it a bleach reference anyway? -- 23:50, October 31, 2011 (UTC)
 * "his hesitation to involve a wider community in various processes" If you spent more time in the channel or had seen me editing on any wiki, you would know I consult others before making any decision. I consider all points when making any kind of administrative decision.
 * " The first concern I have is actually his username, and how he uses it" this is another time in which had you gotten to know me better before you opposed me, you would know this. My user name is a reference to my favorite character in Bleach, Sosuke Aizen, who believes himself to be God. He is the character in my avatar. I tell everyone this when they ask. The name is strictly a reference to Bleach. The signature was done on a dare. A user at Bleach Wiki told me I should change the talk in my sig to "pray". I did so and many people laughed. I have kept it since. I do not allow users to change my name around as it is disrespectful and annoys me. How would you like it if I started calling you addat? I had a user come to Bleach wiki and throw a giant fuss over this in which staff had to tell him there is nothing wrong with my name, nor my signature. I like being called Godisme or God for short, I do not like being called 'isme or Godi. While I respect anyone's faith, I ask that they in turn show me some respect and look at my name as I tell them it is to be taken.
 * "lack of knowledge of what consists of a conflict of interest" I know full well what a conflict of interest is here but the fact remains that by the rules of the page, you did not meet the criteria to vote. It is then my job as a sysop here to remove an ineligible vote. You were told a completely non biased means by which we measured how active a person was on the channel and you did not meat that standard. A conflict of interest in an informal setting such as wikia is not a big deal like it may be on wikimedia.--
 * I know that you consult other users, my concerns lie with who you do and do not consult. Thanks for clarifying the username thing, though I would still recommend that you allow a user to use a different nickname for you if they wish. In regards to the conflict of interest, I still think that admins should never be taking an action in which they have a conflict of interest, regardless of the situation. In that particular case the rules were worded "considers themself a regular", and I did consider myself regular enough to be able to vote. You then "clarified" the rules afterwords to completely exclude me. With a conflict of interest, even if the user is performing a textbook example of how a rule could be broken, an involved admin should never be the one to revert the action, ever (imo). 23:55, October 31, 2011 (UTC)

Comments
I mostly agree with Ajraddatz, except for the parts about your name. Talking to you in Special:Chat made me see how you view decision-making as a process only open to those who are available at times convenient to you. Once the decision is made it is final, and dissenting users are brushed aside because they did not speak at the time when the vote was put up. This is exactly the opposite of the transparency I am looking for. We already have enough problems with secrecy in IRC.

This is more about mindset than it is about your actions (although there are some things you've done that square with this, such as removing Ajraddatz's vote or the problems with Xd1358), and I am worried that if you are given a position of authority in the new channel things will turn out very badly for everyone who is not part of your group.

Similar to what Deltaneos said, I also don't trust you specifically with +F, As a sysop here you promoted Jazzi to prove a point that she was a good as a chatmod in terms of her consent to Xd1358's ban. There are so many things wrong with this, but my main question is, how can we be sure that you will not do the same thing in IRC if you are given the ability to op people?

This is a comment for now because I'm hoping I've misunderstood your intentions. Cook Me Plox 00:56, November 1, 2011 (UTC)

ZamorakO o

 * Support
 * Oppose

Monchoman45

 * Support
 * Oppose

Rappy 4187

 * Support
 * 1) - I believe and trust Rappy would serve the community well. (: –Tm_T (Talk) 14:20, November 1, 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose

Tm_T

 * Support
 * Oppose