FANDOM


Petition to change channel rules for ##wikia to start a new cycle

  1. Ejection of any known walrus
  2. New ops votes here
  3. Clear all lists (+b +q)
  4. Autovoiced ops

New ops

If you support, go to the nominations page.

Support
  1. yup --KλT 17:52, August 13, 2012 (UTC)
  2. --Plasma (Talk) 18:10, August 13, 2012 (UTC)
  3. --Austin (Talk) 18:17, August 13, 2012 (UTC)
  4. All your supports are belong to us – Jazzi (talk) 18:32, August 13, 2012 (UTC)
  5. Good good Ronan
  6. 1358 (Talk) 21:16, August 13, 2012 (UTC)
  7. Isaac829E-Mail 21:19, August 13, 2012 (UTC)
  8. Current ops don't catch me breaking rules, we need more. --Hairr 21:24, August 13, 2012 (UTC)
  9. ~ty 01:56, August 14, 2012 (UTC)
  10. Sure ~Monchoman45 (Talk | Contribs | Central) 02:07, August 14, 2012 (UTC)
  11. I'm all for more coverage when it comes to IRC ops. Pierogi 01:08, August 21, 2012 (UTC)
  12. -- RandomTime
  13. Sure. (: – Tm_T@Ircrules Wiki:~$ 05:05, August 23, 2012 (UTC)
  14. Yes. --Lord of Dark 21:25, August 23, 2012 (UTC)
  15. Sounds good. --Bryanzx 21:43, August 23, 2012 (UTC)
Oppose

Clear all lists (+b +q)

Support
  1. yup--KλT 17:52, August 13, 2012 (UTC)
  2. yes, all but the sheep--Austin (Talk) 17:54, August 13, 2012 (UTC)
  3. yesh--Plasma (Talk) 18:09, August 13, 2012 (UTC)
  4. Keep the needed ones though. – Jazzi (talk) 18:32, August 13, 2012 (UTC)
  5. Yessir Ronan
  6. yes --Ciencia Al Poder en WikiDex 19:20, August 13, 2012 (UTC)
  7. Per Jazzi. 1358 (Talk) 21:16, August 13, 2012 (UTC)
  8. What Jazzi said.Isaac829E-Mail 21:19, August 13, 2012 (UTC)
  9. Per Jazzi <3. --Hairr 21:24, August 13, 2012 (UTC)
  10. We should keep bans on meep-sheep, otherwise, no objections. I also want to bring up that charit is currently banned; I don't know what everyone's opinion on him being unbanned is. ~Monchoman45 (Talk | Contribs | Central) 02:07, August 14, 2012 (UTC)
  11. Yes on everyone but the sheep and Charit. I'm not opposed to unbanning charit, but I think that needs a separate discussion -- RandomTime
  12. Per Monchoman and RandomTime — SpikeToronto 23:28, August 22, 2012 (UTC)
  13. Sure. --Lord of Dark 21:25, August 23, 2012 (UTC)
  14. Don't see the problem. --Bryanzx 21:43, August 23, 2012 (UTC)
Oppose
  • Why? ~ty 07:14, August 16, 2012 (UTC)
Because freenode didn't give us +L with the new ## channel, so every once and a while we need to clear out old bans that aren't relevant anymore so the ban list doesn't fill up. Austin (Talk) 21:56, August 16, 2012 (UTC)
Couldn't the current ops just take it upon themselves to delete old bans/quiets at their discretion though? ~ty 01:12, August 17, 2012 (UTC)
It's been done before, I've seen the mass unbannings. Not sure why it was thrown to a vote. --Austin (Talk) 02:04, August 17, 2012 (UTC)
  1. This should NOT be a vote, but a normal OP duty to make sure their bans or quiets don't fill the list unnecessarily. – Tm_T@Ircrules Wiki:~$ 05:05, August 23, 2012 (UTC)

Charitwo?

Question has been raised on whether Charitwo should be unbanned.[1][2]. Technically, he's not banned(?), whois says he has a different cloak. Given the fact that he hasn't used his new cloak to evade the ban, that IRC != Wikia, and that his global block was controversial anyway...I don't particularly understand why he was banned in the first place, unless the reason was solely because he was globally blocked? Maybe the ops can shed light on that. --Austin (Talk) 23:51, August 22, 2012 (UTC)

Awohl! The following response is no way my opinion on should he be banned or not, just how bans should be considered in overall.
He's banned if he's banned by an old cloak, ip, nick, or by any other means. Evading bans with different cloaks/ips/idents/nicks/whatever does not change the fact. – Tm_T@Ircrules Wiki:~$ 05:05, August 23, 2012 (UTC)
Not sure what you're trying to say? I already said he hasn't evaded the ban, therefore it's a gesture of good faith towards the removal of the ban (the principle of it, anyway). --Austin (Talk) 19:03, August 23, 2012 (UTC)
Firstly, his global ban at Wikia was not controversial. The only controversy was that those who didn’t want him permabanned didn’t get a satisfactory explanation for that ban, an explanation to which they were not entitled, and that he failed to represent accurately and in its entirety. Secondly, he was blocked at ##wikia because of his in-channel behaviour at both #wikia and ##wikia, behaviour to which some chose to be wilfully blind rather than acknowledge. It was not connected to his permaban at Wikia. — SpikeToronto 00:21, August 24, 2012 (UTC)

Autovoiced ops

Support
  1. yup --KλT 17:52, August 13, 2012 (UTC)
  2. Honestly, it doesn't hurt. --Hairr 21:24, August 13, 2012 (UTC)
  3. In my experience, it doesn't do harm. ~ty 01:56, August 14, 2012 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Don't see the point --Austin (Talk) 17:54, August 13, 2012 (UTC)
  2. No point at all. – Jazzi (talk) 18:32, August 13, 2012 (UTC)
  3. Unneeded Ronan
  4. 1358 (Talk) 21:16, August 13, 2012 (UTC)
  5. Isaac829E-Mail 21:19, August 13, 2012 (UTC)
  6. Redundant. Pierogi 01:06, August 21, 2012 (UTC)
  7. Bleh -- RandomTime 21:56, August 22, 2012 (UTC)
  8. Having people voiced without real reason (autovoicing ops for what?) is just making community (channel?) members to different level, uh, without real reason. Just, no. – Tm_T@Ircrules Wiki:~$ 05:05, August 23, 2012 (UTC)
  9. It's not necessary. --Lord of Dark 21:25, August 23, 2012 (UTC)
  10. Not something that important for the channel. --Bryanzx 21:43, August 23, 2012 (UTC)
Neutral
  1. Does it really matter? ~Monchoman45 (Talk | Contribs | Central) 02:04, August 14, 2012 (UTC)
  2. Indifferent. Per Monchoman. — SpikeToronto 23:29, August 22, 2012 (UTC)

Ad blocker interference detected!


Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.