Wikia

GTA Wiki

Changes: GTA Wiki:Community Noticeboard

Edit

Back to page

m (Patroller to Administrator Qualification Criteria)
 
(721 intermediate revisions by 34 users not shown)
Line 2: Line 2:
   
 
'''Archives'''
 
'''Archives'''
*[[GTA Wiki:Comminuty Noticeboard/Archive 1|Archive 1]]
+
*[[GTA Wiki:Community Noticeboard/Archive 1|Archive 1]]
*[[GTA Wiki:Comminuty Noticeboard/Archive 2|Archive 2]]
+
*[[GTA Wiki:Community Noticeboard/Archive 2|Archive 2]]
  +
*[[GTA Wiki:Community Noticeboard/Archive 3|Archive 3]]
  +
*[[GTA Wiki:Community Noticeboard/Archive 4|Archive 4]]
  +
*[[GTA Wiki:Community Noticeboard/Archive 5|Archive 5]]
  +
*[[GTA Wiki:Community Noticeboard/Archive 6|Archive 6]]
   
 
Talk page rules apply here.
 
Talk page rules apply here.
Line 19: Line 19:
 
*Voting usually lasts 3 to 5 days.
 
*Voting usually lasts 3 to 5 days.
   
==Toning Down Obvious Trivial Points==
+
'''Please input your new requests above the old ones. That way, we can easily spot it rather than looking for it.'''
I been noticing some pages recently; when pages have Trivia, the trival points they have are so obvious that you can figure it out yourself rather than reading it. Most of the Trivias have points that are like "The sky is blue."  I been thinking: We get all the obvious trivial points and put them on their articles' sections. There is a policy on Wikipedia (and Wikia in general) where Trivia is not allowed, but it's rare to find one on a page because they have points possibly not known to others. I think the Trivia should be reserved for glitches, tips and unnoticed features in a GTA game, not for, "This is the first appearance of Mikhail Faustin." or "The car is unique to the mission".
+
==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.
   
[[User:Tony 1998|Mr. T., That's Me!]] ([[User talk:Tony 1998|talk]]) 01:32, April 17, 2013 (UTC) 
+
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.
   
I agree with using the Trivia section to point out interesting facts such as puns in names (p.e. [[R.C. Hole]]), continuity errors, hidden stuff...
+
Thanks, [[User:LS11sVaultBoy|LS11sVaultBoy]] ([[User talk:LS11sVaultBoy|Talk]]) 23:55, January 31, 2015 (UTC)
   
However, cleaning up ALL of the Trivia sections in articles of this wiki would be hard, time-taking and, therefore non-effective.
+
==Patroller to Administrator Qualification Criteria==
  +
Closed as unsuccessful - [[User:LS11sVaultBoy|LS11sVaultBoy]] ([[User talk:LS11sVaultBoy|Talk]]) 23:55, January 31, 2015 (UTC)
  +
===Background===
  +
A week ago, [[User:Leon Davis|Leo]] made an [http://gta.wikia.com/GTA_Wiki:Requests_for_Promotion?diff=740986&oldid=740933 update] to the [[GTA_Wiki:Requests_for_Promotion|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.
  +
{{q|To qualify for administrator rights, editors must have been active for four months with no rules violations.|Prior version}}
  +
{{q|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 [[User_talk:LS11sVaultBoy#Question|discussion]] [[User:LS11sVaultBoy|Tom]] had been involved in with with [[User_talk:WildBrick142#RE:_Question_2|Wildbrick142]] about that section but he had stated
  +
{{q|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 [[User_talk:Leon_Davis#Promotion_from_Patroller_to_Admin|discussed]] with Leo [[User_talk:Smurfynz#NG_Vehicle_Images|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. [[User:Smurfynz|smurfy]] <sup><small><small>([[User_talk:Smurfynz|coms]])</small></small></sup> 01:43, January 28, 2015 (UTC)
   
What do you suggest we do, T?
+
===Bureaucrat and Admin only vote===
  +
====Votes====
  +
*<strike>'''Yes '''</strike> '''No'''[[Image:Smashbro8-Sig-pt1.png|90px|link=User:Smashbro8|Smashbro8]] ([[Image:Smashbro8-Sig-pt2.png|50px|link=User talk:Smashbro8|Talk]]) 02:00, January 28, 2015 (UTC)Smashbro8
  +
*'''No''' - <b>[[User:McJeff|Jeff]]</b> ([[User_talk:McJeff|talk]]·[[Special:Contributions/McJeff|stalk]])
  +
*'''No''' - [[User:Leon Davis|Leo68]] ([[User talk:Leon Davis|talk]]) 04:37, January 28, 2015 (UTC)
  +
*'''No''' - [[User:Messi1983|Messi1983]] ([[User talk:Messi1983|talk]]) 10:01, January 28, 2015 (UTC)
  +
*'''No''' - [[User:LS11sVaultBoy|LS11sVaultBoy]] ([[User talk:LS11sVaultBoy|Talk]]) 15:44, January 28, 2015 (UTC)
  +
*'''No''' - [[User:Carl Johnson Jr.|Carl Johnson Jr.]] ([[User talk:Carl Johnson Jr.|talk]]) 00:19, January 30, 2015 (UTC)
   
[[User:Mikey Klebbitz|Mikey Klebbitz]] ([[User talk:Mikey Klebbitz|talk]]) 20:06, April 24, 2013 (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. <b>[[User:McJeff|Jeff]]</b> ([[User_talk:McJeff|talk]]·[[Special:Contributions/McJeff|stalk]]) 02:25, January 28, 2015 (UTC)
  +
*After reading what McJeff said, I'm on his side. [[Image:Smashbro8-Sig-pt1.png|90px|link=User:Smashbro8|Smashbro8]] ([[Image:Smashbro8-Sig-pt2.png|50px|link=User talk:Smashbro8|Talk]]) 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, <span style=color:orange>patrollers</span> must have been active for four months with no rule violations.'' [[User:Smurfynz|smurfy]] <sup><small><small>([[User_talk:Smurfynz|coms]])</small></small></sup> 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. [[User:558050|<span style="color:#FF6600">'''DLVIIIL'''</span>]] [[User talk:558050|<span style="color:#00008b">Talk</span>]] 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. [[User:Leon Davis|Leo68]] ([[User talk:Leon Davis|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. 
   
: I thought about something: We don't have to do it immediately. If we find a page with obvious trivia "facts", just remove them. Let's not start and GTA Wiki-wide clean-up. Just remove some points if we get time.
+
::: 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. [[User:Smurfynz|smurfy]] <sup><small><small>([[User_talk:Smurfynz|coms]])</small></small></sup> 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".[[User:Myth hunter|Hunter]]([[User Talk:Myth hunter|Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Myth_hunter|Stalk]]) 15:14, January 28, 2015 (UTC)
  +
*What everyone said. [[Image:Signature.png|105px|link=User:AndreEagle17|AndreEagle17]] ([[User talk:AndreEagle17|<span style="color:black">talk</span>]]) 15:17, January 28, 2015 (UTC)
  +
*Jeff is right. Proof [http://gta.wikia.com/Special:Log/block?page=User%3AMikey+Klebbitz here] and [http://gta.wikia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=Thomas0802&year=&month=-1&tagfilter= here]. {{Signatures/RainingPain17}} 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. [[User:Leon Davis|Leo68]] ([[User talk:Leon Davis|talk]]) 15:27, January 28, 2015 (UTC)
  +
*I agree with Leo. The applying person should not be banned in last 4 or 6 months.[[User:Myth hunter|Hunter]]([[User Talk:Myth hunter|Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Myth_hunter|Stalk]]) 15:33, January 28, 2015 (UTC)
  +
*I agree with Jeff. [[User:LS11sVaultBoy|LS11sVaultBoy]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:SJWalker|SJWalker]] ([[User talk:SJWalker|talk]]) 15:58, January 28, 2015 (UTC)
  +
*Promotions require special examinations of the users. I agree with Leo. [[User:Carl Johnson Jr.|Carl Johnson Jr.]] ([[User talk:Carl Johnson Jr.|talk]]) 00:19, January 30, 2015 (UTC)
   
: [[User:Tony 1998|Mr. T., That&#39;s Me!]] ([[User talk:Tony 1998|talk]]) 01:41, April 25, 2013 (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 [http://thebill.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:11869 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. {{unsigned|Leon Davis}}
   
::Maybe. What if we separed the articles into "Characters", "Vehicles", "Missions" and "Games" and distribute them by the GTA Wiki Staff?
+
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. [[User:SJWalker|SJWalker]] ([[User talk:SJWalker|talk]]) 16:38, January 20, 2015 (UTC)
::I think it could work...
 
::[[User:Mikey Klebbitz|Mikey Klebbitz]] ([[User talk:Mikey Klebbitz|talk]]) 09:29, April 25, 2013 (UTC)
 
   
:::Guys, read [[GTA Wiki:Trivia|our policy on Trivia]], which states that you should try and intergrate good trivia points into the article itself first. If there is no room for a trivia point in the article, then it goes on the trivia list. "The sky is blue" trivia points, where you state the obvious, such as "Mikhail is Russian" is discouraged and deleted. [[User:Messi1983|Messi1983]] ([[User talk:Messi1983|talk]]) 11:29, April 25, 2013 (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. {{Signatures/RainingPain17}} 17:17, January 20, 2015 (UTC)
   
::::Go ahead and start a wiki wide clean up deleting all the "sky is blue" trivia points if you so wish. Be bold when editing :) [[User:Messi1983|Messi1983]] ([[User talk:Messi1983|talk]]) 11:31, April 25, 2013 (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. [[User:SJWalker|SJWalker]] ([[User talk:SJWalker|talk]]) 17:41, January 20, 2015 (UTC)
   
:::::Ok, let's do this!
+
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. [[User:Smurfynz|smurfy]] <sup><small><small>([[User_talk:Smurfynz|coms]])</small></small></sup> 07:50, January 21, 2015 (UTC)
:::::[[User:Mikey Klebbitz|Mikey Klebbitz]] ([[User talk:Mikey Klebbitz|talk]]) 11:33, April 25, 2013 (UTC)
 
   
==Dealing with Vandals (For Staff and Current/New Users)==
+
: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. [[User:Messi1983|Messi1983]] ([[User talk:Messi1983|talk]]) 11:33, January 22, 2015 (UTC)
When vandalism is going on, isn't it less necessary to confront the such users and tell them off, especially users with no staff ranks and that are patrollers? During the Joshualeverburg Incidents, staffs and non-staff confronted him and in result/retaliation, got their userspages vandalised, such as [[User:Mikey Klebbitz|M.K.]], [[User:Cloudkit01|Hi-Hi Puffy Bosco]], and [[User:Tony 4-2-8-1-9-9-8|myself]]. The average contributors and patrollers should report to an admin/b'crat first rather than acting like an admin or if the admins are active during these incidents, block them immediately. To my sense, if you write to the vandals, telling them to stop, you're more than likely making them say, "What are you going to do about it?", "Ha, Ha" or "I'm going to piss the guy off". I just don't want those vandals coming back attacking the users who told them to stop.
+
===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 [[w:c:community:Special:Contact|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.
   
[[User:Tony 4-2-8-1-9-9-8|Mr. T.]] ([[User talk:Tony 4-2-8-1-9-9-8|talk]]) 01:07, April 1, 2013 (UTC)
+
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. {{Signatures/RainingPain17}} 14:19, January 22, 2015 (UTC)
I agree. I also think that most admins and bureaucrats should be online as often as possible because if we remember back to the 22 case, there were no admins online and his vandalism went on for hours until [[User:Ilan xd|Ilan]] finally came on. [[User:LS11sVaultBoy|VaultBoy Tom]] ([[User talk:LS11sVaultBoy|Talk to me this way]]) 21:01, April 2, 2013 (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. [[Image:Signature.png|105px|link=User:AndreEagle17|AndreEagle17]] ([[User talk:AndreEagle17|<span style="color:black">talk</span>]]) 15:41, January 22, 2015 (UTC)
   
I wasn't active during the Zombie22 Incidents, so I have little knowledge of that. Now that we have five admins, at least one of you guys should check the wiki a couple times a day and always check the Recent WIki Activity page.
+
===Update===
[[User:Tony 4-2-8-1-9-9-8|Mr. T.]] ([[User talk:Tony 4-2-8-1-9-9-8|talk]]) 21:10, April 2, 2013 (UTC)
+
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. [[User:SJWalker|SJWalker]] ([[User talk:SJWalker|talk]]) 15:26, January 22, 2015 (UTC)
<p style="margin-left:24px;">
 
</p>
 
   
  +
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" [[User:SJWalker|SJWalker]] ([[User talk:SJWalker|talk]])
   
:Read [[GTA Wiki:Vandalism]]. There is a section on how to deal with vandalism. If you come to the conclusion that you need to block a user for vandalism or any other incident, then read [[GTA Wiki:Blocking Policy]]. [[User:Messi1983|Messi1983]] ([[User talk:Messi1983|talk]]) 06:10, April 4, 2013 (UTC)
+
:XPanettaa is still trying to get unblocked, and AK-28 is attempting to advise him on how to do that - [http://community.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:787016]. <b>[[User:McJeff|Jeff]]</b> ([[User_talk:McJeff|talk]]·[[Special:Contributions/McJeff|stalk]]) 02:54, January 28, 2015 (UTC)
 
Our '''Do not feed the trolls''' policy is important when dealing with vandals.
 
 
"Everytime we respond to those tryin to ruin the wiki, we are giving them what they want. The more we do that, the more they will be back for more. It's best to be calm, and limit contact with vandals. The less attention they get, the more likely they are to move on. Don't play games with the vandals as this makes it more fun for them."
 
 
See, those are words to live by :) [[User:Messi1983|Messi1983]] ([[User talk:Messi1983|talk]]) 06:15, April 4, 2013 (UTC)
 
 
:That was epic :) -- '''[[User:Ilan xd|ILan]] (<small>[[User talk:Ilan xd|XD]] &bull; [[Special:Contributions/Ilan xd|Edits]] &bull; [[w:c:rockstargames|Home]] </small>)''' 13:04, April 5, 2013 (UTC)
 
 
Read and understood 'em. The "Do not feed the trolls" should be mentioned by any new/normal users should get that memo when they confront the vandal. Like my mom use to say, "Never care for a person if you have no idea of his or her intentions." The care part means anything that you do to the person good. bad or trying to stop his actions, i.e. vandalism. [[User:Tony 4-2-8-1-9-9-8|Mr. T.]] ([[User talk:Tony 4-2-8-1-9-9-8|talk]]) 06:31, April 4, 2013 (UTC)
 
 
==Background==
 
Since there is new artworks for GTA V, is the GTA Wiki background going to change? [[User:Boomer8|Boomer8]] ([[User talk:Boomer8|talk]]) 05:09, February 28, 2013 (UTC)
 
 
==With regards to Promotion==
 
Hey guys. When someone usually requests a promotion, the same reason keeps popping up time and time again. "I've been on this wiki for such and such time and have such and such edits"
 
 
Who agrees with me that this has never been a good reason to request promotion and who agrees that it should be stated on our promotion page? [[User:Messi1983|Messi1983]] ([[User talk:Messi1983|talk]]) 20:48, November 22, 2012 (UTC)
 
 
:When I'm promoting someone, I'm most interested in the quality of their contributions, and after that their ability to get along with other users. Linking to work done on another wiki is fine, but saying "I'm a bureaucrat on somesuch wiki" alone doesn't impress me, because Wikia will let anyone found a wiki or adopt an abandoned wiki, and I've met a couple shockingly incompetent bureaucrats. <b>[[User:McJeff|Jeff]]</b> ([[User_talk:McJeff|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/McJeff|stalk]]) 23:04, November 26, 2012 (UTC)
 
 
::Yeah quality of edits, if they've helped fight vandalism on the wiki, and their ability to get along with others is things I usually look for too. Not how long they have been editing here, how many edits they have, or even their status on another wiki. [[User:Messi1983|Messi1983]] ([[User talk:Messi1983|talk]]) 23:14, November 26, 2012 (UTC)
 
:::Edit count doesn't mean that much really, I know many users that do a full character biography in one edit, something like that is a lot more impressive than 100 seemingly unnecessary edits. But experience on another wiki, so long as that wiki is of a good quality and they have actually contributed significantly to it, does get taken into account in my eyes. The length of time someone has been around on the wiki doesn't matter to me, if there are big gaps in editing or there edits aren't significant that is. So yes, maybe mention these things on the requests for promotion page. <font size="+1.5" face="Trajan Pro"><b>[[User:The Tom|Tom]]</b></font> [[User talk:The Tom|<sup><u>Talk</u></sup>]] 13:30, December 21, 2012 (UTC)
 
 
==Featured Article section==
 
Featured articles are a common feature on almost most wikis. Does anyone think we should have a feature article section on this wiki? [[User:Messi1983|Messi1983]] ([[User talk:Messi1983|talk]]) 06:39, December 14, 2012 (UTC)
 
 
:I would love to see a featured article on the wiki. But I would only want it under the GTA games section; not replaceing it. Were "Rockstar Games Twitter" and "Helping Out" is would be a better place for it. I think a Featured Article would be much better than that. [[User:Boomer8|Boomer8]] ([[User talk:Boomer8|talk]]) 07:24, December 14, 2012 (UTC)
 
 
::Yeah, same here! I would love having a Featured Article section. -- '''[[User:Ilan xd|ILan]] (<small>[[User talk:Ilan xd|XD]] &bull; [[Special:Contributions/Ilan xd|Edits]] &bull; [[w:c:rockstargames|Home]] </small>)''' 16:20, December 14, 2012 (UTC)
 
 
:::Anyone else have any opinions or comments on this? I wonder what Tom and Jeff think. [[User:Messi1983|Messi1983]] ([[User talk:Messi1983|talk]]) 19:25, December 20, 2012 (UTC)
 
 
::::I'm fine with that idea. But if we're going to do something like that we should to have stricter and clearer standards for articles. Official layouts and policies and the like. People usually don't like it when I try to make rules though, I get complaints that I'm making the wiki no fun. <b>[[User:McJeff|Jeff]]</b> ([[User_talk:McJeff|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/McJeff|stalk]]) 21:10, December 20, 2012 (UTC)
 
 
:::::I think a Manual of Style is needed on this wiki. [[User:Messi1983|Messi1983]] ([[User talk:Messi1983|talk]]) 21:33, December 20, 2012 (UTC)
 
 
::::::I agree with Jeff and Dan, it's a good idea but we could do with a Manual of Style, like Dan said. <font size="+1.5" face="Trajan Pro"><b>[[User:The Tom|Tom]]</b></font> [[User talk:The Tom|<sup><u>Talk</u></sup>]] 13:30, December 21, 2012 (UTC)
 
 
::::::::Okay well us three crats all agree on the Manual of Style, so we'll have to start discussing that soon. Does anyone else have any comments on featured articles? [[User:Messi1983|Messi1983]] ([[User talk:Messi1983|talk]]) 16:47, December 21, 2012 (UTC)
 
 
:::::::::Yes, will the Featured article be marked with a template, like [[w:c:rockstargames:Edgar Ross|that]], or an 'Era' template (small icons at the top of the page, indicating games/groups/etc related to the page), like [[w:c:assassinscreed:Desmond Miles|that]]? -- '''[[User:Ilan xd|ILan]] (<small>[[User talk:Ilan xd|XD]] &bull; [[Special:Contributions/Ilan xd|Edits]] &bull; [[w:c:rockstargames|Home]] </small>)''' 16:58, December 21, 2012 (UTC)
 
 
::::::::::Just an aside, I'm going away for about a week (give or take a couple days) for Christmas so I'll likely not be responding to this for a while... on the other hand I might end up with hours per day on my hands and put in some actual work on this place. But if I do go quiet that's why. <b>[[User:McJeff|Jeff]]</b> ([[User_talk:McJeff|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/McJeff|stalk]]) 03:34, December 22, 2012 (UTC)
 
 
:I say we leave the discussion until after Christmas as I'll be busy over the holiday period aswell. [[User:Messi1983|Messi1983]] ([[User talk:Messi1983|talk]]) 04:26, December 23, 2012 (UTC)
 
 
::I think this discussion should begin again. The featured articles are also on the Red dead Wiki and they seem good on there, so I also think it's a good idea. [[User:LS11sVaultBoy|VaultBoy Tom]] ([[User talk:LS11sVaultBoy|Talk to me this way]]) 20:09, March 28, 2013 (UTC)
 
 
:::We have the featured articles section, but it's been sticky on the ambulance for a long time. It would be nice if it changed only a weekly or bi-weekly rotor. [[User:JBanton|JBanton]] ([[User talk:JBanton|Talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/JBanton|Contribs]]) 08:54, March 29, 2013 (UTC)
 
 
::::We can delete this section and make a new one. Also, a weekly rotor is such an annoying thing, as it would eventually repeat itslef too much. I prefer promoting articles to a "featured status" and then just show them 'randomly' each time when a user views the main page, like [[w:c:maxpayne|this one]]. -- '''[[User:Ilan xd|ILan]] (<small>[[User talk:Ilan xd|XD]] &bull; [[Special:Contributions/Ilan xd|Edits]] &bull; [[w:c:rockstargames|Home]] </small>)''' 09:23, March 29, 2013 (UTC)
 
 
:::::I like the sound of that. [[User:JBanton|JBanton]] ([[User talk:JBanton|Talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/JBanton|Contribs]]) 10:01, March 29, 2013 (UTC)
 
 
==Wiki Reconstruction==
 
I say we should bring to the wiki back to life a little bit. We are one of the best wikis, but we lack of new users (50 a month isn't that good). Here are my ideeas:
 
*Adding a new background (GTA V themed).
 
*Based on the color of the background, we should change the wiki skin color.
 
*Re-writing the main article and making it more friendly for new users.
 
*Adding "featured articles" and polls.
 
 
Of course, this shouldn't happen that fast, but with GTA V on the way, we might catch some new users. We want them to stay, no? <span style="-moz-border-radius-topleft:15px; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:15px; border:2px ridge yellow; -moz-box-shadow: 0 0 0.6em black; -webkit-box-shadow: 0 0 0.6em black; box-shadow: 0 0 0.6em black; background-color:#000000">[[File:Dodo8_logo.png|35px|link=User:Dodo8]][[User:Dodo8|''<span style="color:yellow; font-family:Cooper Black">Dodo8</span>'']] [[User talk:Dodo8|<sup>''<span style="color:yellow; font-family:Cooper Black>Talk</span>''</sup>]]</span>
 
 
 
 
:I do agree with you on most things but GTA isn't really the most brightest game so, I don't think changing the Wikis skin colour will do much but the other ideas are good. [[User:LS11sVaultBoy|VaultBoy Tom]] ([[User talk:LS11sVaultBoy|Talk to me this way]]) 20:23, March 28, 2013 (UTC)
 
:All those things sound good, espesially "featured articles". The only thing I don't agree with is changing the wiki's background. Great ideas!  [[User:Boomer8|Boomer8]] ([[User talk:Boomer8|talk]]) 05:03, March 29, 2013 (UTC)
 
:What this wiki needs is a GTA V background image. [[User:Messi1983|Messi1983]] ([[User talk:Messi1983|talk]]) 05:54, March 29, 2013 (UTC)
 
:: We should definetely change the Main Page. It looks "old". <span style="-moz-border-radius-topleft:15px; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:15px; border:2px ridge yellow; -moz-box-shadow: 0 0 0.6em black; -webkit-box-shadow: 0 0 0.6em black; box-shadow: 0 0 0.6em black; background-color:#000000">[[File:Dodo8_logo.png|35px|link=User:Dodo8]][[User:Dodo8|''<span style="color:yellow; font-family:Cooper Black">Dodo8</span>'']] [[User talk:Dodo8|<sup>''<span style="color:yellow; font-family:Cooper Black>Talk</span>''</sup>]]</span>
 
 
::: Something with all the three protagonist or a view of Los Santos would be nice. -- '''[[User:Ilan xd|ILan]] (<small>[[User talk:Ilan xd|XD]] &bull; [[Special:Contributions/Ilan xd|Edits]] &bull; [[w:c:rockstargames|Home]] </small>)''' 09:23, March 29, 2013 (UTC)
 
::::Yeah, that'd be nice. [[User:LS11sVaultBoy|VaultBoy Tom]] ([[User talk:LS11sVaultBoy|Talk to me this way]]) 09:51, March 29, 2013 (UTC)
 
:::::The main page is fine as it is. It's the background image that needs changing. [[User:Messi1983|Messi1983]] ([[User talk:Messi1983|talk]]) 11:40, March 29, 2013 (UTC)
 
 
 
 
 
 
:Ok, Messi. I thought I could help, but I can't test backgrounds since I'm not an Admin. We might have to wait for someone with experience in making backgrounds. Any ideeas who could be? Maybe a Community Wikia staff? <span style="-moz-border-radius-topleft:15px; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:15px; border:2px ridge yellow; -moz-box-shadow: 0 0 0.6em black; -webkit-box-shadow: 0 0 0.6em black; box-shadow: 0 0 0.6em black; background-color:#000000">[[File:Dodo8_logo.png|35px|link=User:Dodo8]][[User:Dodo8|''<span style="color:yellow; font-family:Cooper Black">Dodo8</span>'']] <sup>''<span style="color:yellow; font-family:Cooper Black>Tal </span>''</sup></span>
 
:[[User:Sasquatch101|Sasquatch101]] ([[User talk:Sasquatch101|talk]]) 03:33, April 1, 2013 (UTC) 
 
 
:Changing the backround to a backdrop of Los Santos would be a great face lift for the wiki. The wiki skin should stay dark though. 
 
 
:If the wiki is going to have a new background it should be the new protagonists. Like how the wiki currently has the IV Era protags. Not Los Santos.  [[User:Boomer8|Boomer8]] ([[User talk:Boomer8|talk]]) 02:16, April 3, 2013 (UTC)
 
 
::Agreed. Well if someone can make a background image, then I'll change it. [[User:Messi1983|Messi1983]] ([[User talk:Messi1983|talk]]) 02:42, April 5, 2013 (UTC)
 
:::I have photoshop, but I'm not used to it. I think we will have to ask someone from the Community Wiki?<span style="color:#FF6600; font-family:Cooper Black">[[User:Dodo8|Dodo8]]</span> [[User talk:Dodo8|<sup>''<span style="color:#FF6600; font-family:Cooper Black>Talk</span>''</sup>]]
 
 
::::Well, who made the current background? [[User:LS11sVaultBoy|VaultBoy Tom]] ([[User talk:LS11sVaultBoy|Talk to me this way]]) 08:57, April 5, 2013 (UTC)
 
::::::I am probably not meant to be posting here, but the background was made by [http://gta.wikia.com/User:JoePlay JoePlay].[[File:v-michael-trunk-mini.jpg|30px|link=User:WildBrick142|My User page...]]<span class="helpcursor">[[File:V-franklin-trunk-mini.jpg|30px|link=w:c:wildonesgame:User talk:WildBrick142|Whats up?]]</span>[[File:V-trevor-trunk-mini.jpg|30px|link=w:c:wildonesgame:Special:Contributions/WildBrick142|I did NOTHING!]] 13:01, April 5, 2013 (UTC)
 
 
Since everybody seems to agree that the new protagonists should be the background, shall I post a request to Wikia? First we should probably decide on an image for them to use. <font size="+1.5" face="Trajan Pro"><b>[[User:The Tom|Tom]]</b></font> [[User talk:The Tom|<sup><u>Talk</u></sup>]] 16:48, April 10, 2013 (UTC)
 
 
:[[:File:The Trunk-GTAV.jpg]] and [[:File:Trevorfranklinmichael-GTAV.jpg]]. Can't think on other backgrounds than those. -- '''[[User:Ilan xd|ILan]] (<small>[[User talk:Ilan xd|XD]] &bull; [[Special:Contributions/Ilan xd|Edits]] &bull; [[w:c:rockstargames|Home]] </small>)''' 18:01, April 10, 2013 (UTC)
 
::On the left side a photo of Trevor in "The Trunk", and on the other side Franklin's in the second picture Ilan shown. And the background (of the background, lol) to have the skyline of Los Santos.<span style="color:#FF6600; font-family:Cooper Black">[[User:Dodo8|Dodo8]]</span> [[User talk:Dodo8|<sup>''<span style="color:#FF6600; font-family:Cooper Black>Talk</span>''</sup>]]
 
:::I think just using the second image would be better, Trevor and Michael on either side. <font size="+1.5" face="Trajan Pro"><b>[[User:The Tom|Tom]]</b></font> [[User talk:The Tom|<sup><u>Talk</u></sup>]] 19:36, April 10, 2013 (UTC)
 
 
:::I was thinking that this wiki could be bright like GTA V. Having The GTA V cover or All Three Protagonists in the background image and having the colors being bright like the game looks. That would be great. [[User:Matt Seay|Matt Seay]] ([[User talk:Matt Seay|talk]]) 21:24, April 13, 2013 (UTC)
 
::::I'm not really sure how having all three would work, making two smaller and having them on one side would look a bit off. As would having a transparent background. <font size="+1.5" face="Trajan Pro"><b>[[User:The Tom|Tom]]</b></font> [[User talk:The Tom|<sup><u>Talk</u></sup>]] 08:43, April 14, 2013 (UTC)
 
 
::::Yes this true, I guess just the Game Cover Art would be good. I mean technocaly GTA IV has 3 protags, and only two are on the background. I am more in favor of the cover art being the background but I want something that is kind of generic for the new game. [[User:Matt Seay|Matt Seay]] ([[User talk:Matt Seay|talk]]) 02:09, April 17, 2013 (UTC)
 
 
==Help from the [http://es.gta.wikia.com/wiki/Grand_Theft_Encyclopedia Spanish GTA Wiki]==
 
 
So, I talked to this Staff member, who apparently is talented in coding and is also a GTA fan. His name is [http://es.gta.wikia.com/wiki/Muro:Bola Bola].
 
 
He agreed to help us. But first we will have to decide the background(s). Sincerely, I don't want anymore protagonists' faces looking at me all-day long.
 
I thought of using this:
 
 
[[File:BeautifulSunset-GTAV.jpg|200px]]
 
 
Also, I tought of having a header like on tha Spanish wiki. You know, the navigation thingy with On The Wiki, GTA Games, GTA Info, Community. Maybe we could use the Skyline in this picture:
 
 
[[File:Beachweather-GTAV.jpg|200px]]
 
 
I don't know, but we must take a decision, since Bola is ready to help us.<span style="color:#FF6600; font-family:Cooper Black">[[User:Dodo8|Dodo8]]</span> [[User talk:Dodo8|<sup>''<span style="color:#FF6600; font-family:Cooper Black>Talk</span>''</sup>]]
 
 
:The skyline one is definitely more user-friendly. The bikini girl background would make the wiki more or less unusable for anyone who wanted to look at it at school or work, and I can imagine female editors not really caring for it too. <b>[[User:McJeff|Jeff]]</b> ([[User_talk:McJeff|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/McJeff|stalk]]) 18:49, April 24, 2013 (UTC)
 
 
::The girl won't appear on the header, only the skyline beside her will do. Like this on the Spanish wiki:
 
[[File:Sp_Wiki_Header.png|300px]]
 
<span style="color:#FF6600; font-family:Cooper Black">[[User:Dodo8|Dodo8]]</span> [[User talk:Dodo8|<sup>''<span style="color:#FF6600; font-family:Cooper Black>Talk</span>''</sup>]]
 
 
I agree with Jeff.
 
 
I don't, but if I happened to visit the wiki at school, it wouldn't be easy to explain that good-looking girl in the background...
 
 
The skyline background doesn't bring any heat, haha.
 
 
[[User:Mikey Klebbitz|Mikey Klebbitz]] ([[User talk:Mikey Klebbitz|talk]]) 20:16, April 24, 2013 (UTC)
 
 
::Skyline one looks best I think. Bikini one is good for a male audience, but females play GTA too. [[User:Messi1983|Messi1983]] ([[User talk:Messi1983|talk]]) 22:54, April 24, 2013 (UTC)
 
 
'''EVERYONE LISTEN:''' the girl won't appear on the wiki, only the skyline beside her will be the header. And the other picture will be the background. So, let's decide already. Am I telling to Bola?<span style="color:#FF6600; font-family:Cooper Black">[[User:Dodo8|Dodo8]]</span> [[User talk:Dodo8|<sup>''<span style="color:#FF6600; font-family:Cooper Black>Talk</span>''</sup>]]
 
 
:I think that if the woman isn't in it, like you say, then yeah, it will be more user friendly. However, I do like the skyline one a lot. I think it would be the better of the two. [[User:LS11sVaultBoy|VaultBoy Tom]] ([[User talk:LS11sVaultBoy|Talk to me this way]]) 11:41, April 25, 2013 (UTC)
 
 
:I prefer the skyline screenshot. It just looks better in my opinion than the bikini artwork, regardless the girl's appearance or not. -- '''[[User:Ilan xd|ILan]] (<small>[[User talk:Ilan xd|XD]] &bull; [[Special:Contributions/Ilan xd|Edits]] &bull; [[w:c:rockstargames|Home]] </small>)''' 12:59, April 25, 2013 (UTC)
 
:I quite like the skyline shot as well. I'm not so sure about putting the cover girl ahead of protagonists or main characters. [[User:JBanton|JBanton]] ([[User talk:JBanton|Talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/JBanton|Contribs]]) 14:27, April 25, 2013 (UTC)
 
 
:<big>Ok, I'm going to tell Bola to use this image as the main background. We will think about the header later. </big>
 
<big>[[File:Optional Background.jpg|200px]]</big><span style="color:#FF6600; font-family:Cooper Black">[[User:Dodo8|Dodo8]]</span> [[User talk:Dodo8|<sup>''<span style="color:#FF6600; font-family:Cooper Black>Talk</span>''</sup>]]
 
 
I think both of these are pretty good for the background. But I prefer the skyline picture rather than the bikini girl one
 
(and I know its only the background and not her included). Either way these both make great backgrounds. --[[User:Boomer8|Boomer8]] ([[User talk:Boomer8|talk]]) 02:53, April 26, 2013 (UTC)
 
 
::I decided to use the skyline beside the girl. I already sent Bola a message, now we just have to wait. Also I'll think about the header image at an other time...<span style="color:#FF6600; font-family:Cooper Black">[[User:Dodo8|Dodo8]]</span> <sup>''<span style="color:#FF6600; font-family:Cooper Black>[[User talk:Dodo8|Talk]]</span>''</sup>
 
==Manual of style==
 
I have recently create a page to hopefully try and smoothen the operation of our vehicles department, however I do not want to press ahead with its implementation without community consensus. The [[Manual_of_Style/Vehicles|Manual of Style for Vehicles]]<span style="line-height:20px;"> has been created and I would like the Bureacrats and admins to have a look at it.</span>
 
 
<span style="line-height:20px;">Also I recently imported the {{Template:T|t}} from Drive Club Wiki, I probably should have asked this community first. Is there anybody who would like this template to be removed? [[User:JBanton|JBanton]] ([[User talk:JBanton|Talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/JBanton|Contribs]]) 16:04, May 4, 2013 (UTC)</span>
 
 
::If you need that template, it shouldn't be removed. You don't have to ask for things you have to do, you are an admin afterall. :) <span style="color:#FF6600; font-family:Cooper Black">[[User:Dodo8|Dodo8]]</span> [[User talk:Dodo8|<sup>''<span style="color:#FF6600; font-family:Cooper Black>Talk</span>''</sup>]]
 
 
==Chat Problems==
 
 
So you all know that I'm always on chat to see if anyone is there, but it's always quiet there and I'm always the only there, there has to be a staff here that's not busy with something should be in chat when I'm school, so I'm gonna figure out how to get more users to come on this chat. [[User:Cloudkit01|Cloudkit01]] ([[User talk:Cloudkit01|talk]]) 03:24, May 7, 2013 (UTC)Cloudkit01
 

Latest revision as of 23:55, January 31, 2015

Welcome to GTA Wiki's Community noticeboard.

Archives

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.

Missions in GTA 2Edit

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 CriteriaEdit

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

BackgroundEdit

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 voteEdit

VotesEdit

Discussion (all editors welcome) Edit

  • 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. Smashbro8-Sig-pt1 (Smashbro8-Sig-pt2) 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. Signature (talk) 15:17, January 28, 2015 (UTC)
  • Jeff is right. Proof here and here. Rain (Stalker) 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 Edit

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 (talkcontribs) 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 (Stalker) 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)

ReportEdit

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:

I'll reply to any questions about it on my talk page. Rain (Stalker) 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. Signature (talk) 15:41, January 22, 2015 (UTC)

UpdateEdit

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)

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki