GTA Wiki:Community Noticeboard

Welcome to GTA Wiki's Community noticeboard.

Archives

• Archive 1
• Archive 2
• Archive 3
• Archive 4
• Archive 5
• Archive 6

Talk page rules apply here.

This noticeboard is for discussion and voting on changes to the wiki, reporting vandalism and wiki rule breaking, and reporting bad or unfair behaviour from GTA Wiki staff.

For requests for promotion, please go to GTA Wiki:Requests for Promotion.

We currently have a lot of staff so there will be no more Patroller requests for a while. Current Patrollers may request to be promoted to Admin status by voting on the Requests for Promotion Page.

Voting Rules
Since voting about a change can cause arguments, here are the rules.

• Anyone can start a topic for a community vote.
• Please be civil when voting, and never condemn another users vote.
• Voting usually lasts 3 to 5 days.

Please input your new requests above the old ones. That way, we can easily spot it rather than looking for it.

Media Policy: A New-Look Image Policy

This has been lingering around the wiki for a few days. A policy about uploading videos to the wiki has been suggested by Andre. My idea;

We add info to the image policy about uploading videos and rename it the Media Policy. It will be in one location for users to understand how to add both images and videos here.

• ALL videos must have a clear picture and clean audio.
• All videos must be copyrighted to show who the video belongs to, the video's site and Rockstar Games.
  • All videos have to be GTA related.
• Videos MUST NOT violate other policies such as leaked information.
• Videos must have an extra copyright if it features music.

Feel free to add to the policy and vote on whether or not we should implement this. Leo68 (talk) 09:02, March 1, 2015 (UTC)

Votes

• Yes - Leo68 (talk) 09:02, March 1, 2015 (UTC)
• Yes -  (talk) | (stalk) 11:25, March 1, 2015 (UTC)
• Yes - (talk/stalk/blog) 13:51, March 1, 2015 (UTC)
• Yes - SJWalker (talk) 13:55, March 1, 2015 (UTC)
• Yes - Hunter(Talk/Stalk) 18:03, March 1, 2015 (UTC)

Comments

• Absolutely, i've seen quite a few pages with videos which contravene these rules. Template:Monkeypolice188/Sig

Missions in GTA 2

I was just writing this to let you guys know who want to get some edits that most of the missions in GTA 2 still need infoboxes and images. To get the images, watch GTA Series Videos play the mission on Youtube, print screen it while it is saying the mission name and then crop it in an editing application such as Paint.NET. I'm currently doing it as well but I'm going to have to continue tomorrow as I am going shortly.

Also, the missions in GTA 1 are pretty much a lost cause because I can't find videos of the missions anywhere to get images or even an understanding of what happens in the mission. If anyone can do either of these things then that would be great.

Thanks, LS11sVaultBoy (Talk) 23:55, January 31, 2015 (UTC)

Patroller to Administrator Qualification Criteria

Closed as unsuccessful - LS11sVaultBoy (Talk) 23:55, January 31, 2015 (UTC)

Background

A week ago, Leo made an update to the RfP rules to add the probation period for new Patrollers as had been agreed by the Bureaucrats and Admins. At the same time he also changed the line relating to experience required for applicants to the Administrator role.

“

To qualify for administrator rights, editors must have been active for four months with no rules violations.

”

— Prior version

“

To qualify for administrator rights, editors must have been active patrollers for four months with no rule violations.

”

— Revised version

This was probably an outcome of a discussion Tom had been involved in with with Wildbrick142 about that section but he had stated

“

I think you would be best if you ran for Patroller first just to make it "fair" so that you get promoted in the same way as everyone else and then a month or two later you could run for admin.

”

— Tom replying to Wildbrick142

As I discussed with Leo at the time, I probably agree with the change (despite it directly impacting my personal agenda), but I don't believe it was an authorized rule update and it should be discussed and agreed by Admin/Bureaucrat staff before being added. Similarly to the Probation discussion, Patrollers and editors should not get a say in this discussion as we would have a vested interest in retaining the status quo. smurfy ^(coms) 01:43, January 28, 2015 (UTC)

Bureaucrat and Admin only vote

Votes

• Yes  No () 02:00, January 28, 2015 (UTC)Smashbro8
• No - Jeff (talk·stalk)
• No - Leo68 (talk) 04:37, January 28, 2015 (UTC)
• No - Messi1983 (talk) 10:01, January 28, 2015 (UTC)
• No - LS11sVaultBoy (Talk) 15:44, January 28, 2015 (UTC)
• No - Carl Johnson Jr. (talk) 00:19, January 30, 2015 (UTC)

Discussion (all editors welcome)

• I don't want to just say "if you've been blocked you can never be promoted" because it's not necessary. We've had multiple editors who got blocked, realized that this wasn't one of those online communities that doesn't actually enforce its rules, cleaned up their act and went on to be administrators. If there are outstanding behavior concerns about any editor running for promotion, those concerns should be brought up during the voting - that's what the vote is for in the first place, and that's why it's supposed to last for a week. As for length of time an editor has to be editing to be eligible to promote, I don't have much of a problem with such a thing but I don't really think it's necessary. Lack of being active long enough is always brought up when new editors go for a promotion too soon, and we've also had a couple particularly good editors show up and get promoted more quickly than usual. Basically, I feel it's better to consider every editor individually rather than try to make ironclad rules, because ironclad rules tend to do more harm than good in the long run. Jeff (talk·stalk) 02:25, January 28, 2015 (UTC)
• After reading what McJeff said, I'm on his side. () 02:32, January 28, 2015 (UTC)Smashbro8
• Since Jeff is happy to include all editors in the discussion (but not the vote), I would suggest Leo's edit requires a minor semantic change: To qualify for administrator rights, patrollers must have been active for four months with no rule violations. smurfy ^(coms) 03:02, January 28, 2015 (UTC)
• I agree about keeping the "four months as a patroller to become an admin" rule. Experience should be an important aspect to be promoted, and I was never a fan of promoting people who are in the wikia for one or two months just because their edits are good, It makes the promotion seems way too easy and insignificant. Making it take longer not just makes the person who wants to get the promotion work harder, but also make him valorize the position more when he finally get it, with also reduces the chances of him resigning too soom. DLVIIIL Talk 03:19, January 28, 2015 (UTC)
• To reitirate. I made an alteration to the admin area as it said Users must have been active for four months. I figured, being a first time users never usually make admin first, they have to become patrollers. I changed the word users to patrollers. I figured it would make more sense. I changed this when I added the information about probationary periods for patrollers to the Requests for Promotion page. If people were confused, tell me, and then if it made more sense then I could have changed it back. I don't think users should be allowed to skip Patroller and make admin. It just can't justified. I also believe we don't need to change anything about administrator rights. I voted no. Leo68 (talk) 04:37, January 28, 2015 (UTC)
• Man, I really must not have been as clear in the way I had written this out as I thought I was.
  • I'm not suggesting I thought the rule wording meant editors could skip the Patroller step, although that was a little ambiguous and probably needed clarifying, as shown by the question Wildbrick posed to Tom. 

Prior to Leo's edit, the way the rule was written and the way I understood it, any Patroller with a total of 4 months editing could have applied for Admin. (e.g. 2 months as editor to qualify for patroller, 2 months as patroller to qualify for admin). After the edit, that was now a total of 6 months "minimum" (e.g. 2 months as editor to qualify for patroller, 4 months as patroller to qualify for admin). That was what the change meant to the rule to me. 

The vote here was: Should Patrollers now be required to serve a minimum of 4 months as a Patroller to qualify to apply for an Administrator position? not whether Admin positions should be open to non-patrollers. smurfy ^(coms) 05:12, January 28, 2015 (UTC)

• I don't think that there should be a prohibition of not getting promoted if an editor was blocked. Some people who have previously been blocked, learn from their mistakes and work hard to qualify for a staff position. Hence in my opinion their should not be a rule like "If you ever got blocked, you can never be promoted".Hunter(Talk/Stalk) 15:14, January 28, 2015 (UTC)
• What everyone said. (talk) 15:17, January 28, 2015 (UTC)
• Jeff is right. Proof here and here. Rain - Talk 15:25, January 28, 2015 (UTC)
• A vote within six monthss is justifiable. We're not going to promote someone who was recently banned, but we're not going to deny previously banned users from applying for promotion. Leo68 (talk) 15:27, January 28, 2015 (UTC)
• I agree with Leo. The applying person should not be banned in last 4 or 6 months.Hunter(Talk/Stalk) 15:33, January 28, 2015 (UTC)
• I agree with Jeff. LS11sVaultBoy (Talk) 15:44, January 28, 2015 (UTC)
• I agree with Jeff too. Promotions should be considered on an individual basis, as some new users hit the ground running whilst others get into the swing of it gradually. When it comes to patrollers becoming admins, however, I think there should be a minimum amount of time, as the step up is a big one and some sink and others swim. With regards to welcoming back banned members, I think there should also be a minimum amount of time (four months to become patrollers, six to become admins) before they can apply for staff positions as that allows the rest of us to see if they've learnt their lessons. For users like Sasquatch, it's too early for him to be considered again as he's very inactive and we're having to remind him how to behave. I think returning users deserve second chances, but they must be earnt. SJWalker (talk) 15:58, January 28, 2015 (UTC)
• Promotions require special examinations of the users. I agree with Leo. Carl Johnson Jr. (talk) 00:19, January 30, 2015 (UTC)

XPanetta

Heads up to all the users, XPanetta is going onto other wikis to convince users to un-block him now that Ilan is gone. Ignore him, if the harassment continues, report him to an admin, or if you can block him from the wiki like I have. See the latest log on The Bill Wikia, where I am a Bureaucrat (he has been blocked from said wiki). The first notice was in September, and the most recent was today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leon Davis (talk • contribs) Please remember to sign your talk page messages with ~~~~.

Thanks for the warning Leo. Considering Tom was one of the ones harrassed by X I can't see him unblocking X any time soon, but we'll all keep our eyes open for him. I think eventually Wikia will do an IP block on him if he continues his harrassment and gets blocked from wikis one by one. SJWalker (talk) 16:38, January 20, 2015 (UTC)

I blocked him a month ago on another Wiki for harassing Smashbro. Ever since he got blocked he has so far only cross-wiki harrassed administrators to get unblocked. I'm thinking about filling a report to Wikia against him. I could read once that harrassment can lead to your account being globally blocked. Rain - Talk 17:17, January 20, 2015 (UTC)

I'd file a report if I were you Rain. There's enough evidence of harrassment and he even helps us by listing what he was blocked for. SJWalker (talk) 17:41, January 20, 2015 (UTC)

I don't think our admin cleanout has been that drastic that trolls like this will get away with asking to have well-deserved infinite blocks overturned. His current harrassing and pleading and demanding is no different to what he has been doing constantly since he was first warned here, let alone after his block(s). Wikia staff have told him point blank he deserved the block and he should pull his head in, but he hasn't given up. Eventually I think he will get a global Wikia block. In the mean time, I do feel sorry for those of you who have your other wikia activity advertised in your profiles which makes you potential targets for him. smurfy ^(coms) 07:50, January 21, 2015 (UTC)

He messaged me on my talk page on wikianswers. I reverted the edit stating that I do not wish to discuss GTA Wiki on another wiki. If he continues such harrassment I will block him there. Messi1983 (talk) 11:33, January 22, 2015 (UTC)

Report

As I am busy today coupled with what appear to be internet problems (pages that take time to load and etc.), I'm putting here all evidence I could gather regarding XPanettaa harrassing others. If anyone can report him, they must do this through this. One should provide evidence of it as I doubt Wikia staff would deal with someone without proof. If anyone has more evidence of it, post it below.

Evidence:

• XP's thread on Community Wiki: http://community.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:740624
• XP's original request to be unblocked to Ilan (at least the only one Ilan replied to): http://reddead.wikia.com/wiki/User_talk:Ilan_xd#Block
• Ilan's reply to XP with a clear "NO": http://reddead.wikia.com/wiki/User_talk:XPanettaa#RE:
• Harrassment of Smashbro8: http://watchdogs.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:12995 and http://midnightclub.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:4308
• Harrassment of Leon Davis: http://thebill.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:11869
• Harrassment of The Tom: http://mafiagame.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:18856
• Harrassment of Messi1983 mentioned above: http://answers.wikia.com/wiki/User_talk:Messi1983?diff=5935870&oldid=5294604

I'll reply to any questions about it on my talk page. Rain - Talk 14:19, January 22, 2015 (UTC)

He knows some of us are admins/bureaucrats of other wikis, he will be harrising us as soon as he knows which wiki we run, he has been in multiple wikis, such as the Midnight Club wiki, the Bill wiki, the Watch Dogs wiki, the Red Dead wiki, the Mafia wiki, he didn't attempt to visit my Scarface wiki yet, but i'll not even answer him, he'll be automatically blocked, he and Sean are a pain in the ass. (talk) 15:41, January 22, 2015 (UTC)

Update

Report filed. I have sent a report including the evidence to Wikia, and received an email back saying they will look into the evidence and get back to me within two days if necessary. SJWalker (talk) 15:26, January 22, 2015 (UTC)

I have received an email from the Wiki moderators. Here is the email in full: "Hello, Thanks for contacting us, and apologies for the slow response. I have communicated to XPanettaa that his actions are not reasonable, and that he should desist in his pestering about the block. Hopefully this will have a positive effect. With regards the other user, they do currently have a Wikia-wide block against those accounts - so you shouldn't be continuing to have issues with them. Has there been any recent activity around that? (http://community.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:741274#38appears to come a little out of the blue, the previous response being in November). Thanks again for bringing this to our attention, and best regards, George Marbulcanti (Kirkburn) Wikia Community Support" SJWalker (talk)

XPanettaa is still trying to get unblocked, and AK-28 is attempting to advise him on how to do that - [1]. Jeff (talk·stalk) 02:54, January 28, 2015 (UTC)