User talk:McJeff

If you leave a message on my talk page, I will respond here. If I leave you a message on your talk page, please respond there. I just like to keep conversations in one place so I don't have to switch pages to follow them.

This talk page is a swearing fucking permitted zone. Censorship asterisks are not permitted. Either refrain from swearing completely (which is cool) or belt that shit out loud and proud.

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3	Archive 4
Archive 5	Archive 6	Archive 7	Archive 8
Archive 9	Archive 10	Archive 11	Archive 12

RFP

Hey, I've made an RFP, can you please swing by and vote. smurfy ^(coms) 23:51, January 4, 2015 (UTC)

People leaving

I had to agree with everything you said in your profile, I love the GTA series, but I think, honestly, users should have a higher knowledge about the series before thinking about being a staff member, you can see, many users left because they simply love GTA SA and they hate GTA V, if you ask them how many GTA games they have played, they'll only say GTA SA and GTA V (and probaly GTA IV too), I for an example, have played all the GTA games except GTA London and GTA Advance, there are some users like me in the wiki, such as 558050 and WildBrick142, they have played all games, IMO to be a staff member, the users should play at least five GTA games, to be exact: Vice City, San Andreas, IV, Ballad of Gay Tony and GTA V. (talk) 23:05, January 19, 2015 (UTC)

Well said Jeff. Leo68 (talk) 23:08, January 19, 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't really like how people call themselves "GTA experts" if they have only played 1 or 2 games. Unless they have read the Wiki heaps, knowing everything about SA doesn't meant you know everything about GTA in general. User:LegenDove 14:39, January 21, 2015 (UTC)

People Leaving

I was talking exactly about this with AndreEagle17 a few days ago (we talk in portuguese, so I guess none of you understood), people losing interest in the wikia or GTA. I also believe that is something perfectly normal, checking the profile of some of the ex-members of the staff I noticed how many people were demoted because of inactive, so all happening is not something new for the GTA wikia.

I don't know if theres any way to avoid promoting people that will lose interest in GTA after a while, I even sugested to AndreEagle17 to raise from 2 to 6 months the amound of time that someone needs to be on the wikia to become a patroller. Thats because, if someone joins the wikia after buying GTA V and he is only playing the game because of the hype and not because he is a true fan of the series, he probably will have already lost interest in the game after 6 months if not less, so we don't run the risk of promoting someone that will leave the wikia after just a couple of months, like the recent case of RainingPain. It's not 100% secure of course, but I guess it could help. --558050 (talk) 23:41, January 19, 2015 (UTC)

Out of interest

Are you interested on coming back on the team as a patroller or administrator? Messi1983 (talk) 18:09, January 23, 2015 (UTC)

Not really, I don't edit enough. I'd come back as a bureaucrat with the understanding that I'd step down once we had a third person ready to promote because staffing and running a wiki is what I'm good at, but I don't really edit content hardly ever and that means I don't have any business being a patroller or admin. Jeff (talk·stalk) 20:20, January 23, 2015 (UTC)

"I'd come back as a bureaucrat" That's great to hear. I had been reading and trying to gauge whether it would be worth asking you to "step into the breach" temporarily but thought you felt bound by the "no take-backs" agreement you had with the others. I'd say if Dan and Vaultboy Tom agree, you should be in without needing any election. smurfy ^(coms) 20:29, January 23, 2015 (UTC)

I am cool with you coming back as a temporary bureaucrat until we found a third person to take over the position permanently. Messi1983 (talk) 20:48, January 23, 2015 (UTC)

Well, no take-backs is a rule so I guess I'll file a request for promotion on the Promotion board then. Jeff (talk·stalk) 20:49, January 23, 2015 (UTC)

Sure go ahead. Messi1983 (talk) 20:51, January 23, 2015 (UTC)

It's up. Jeff (talk·stalk) 20:56, January 23, 2015 (UTC)

I sent you two emails. Messi1983 (talk) 21:07, January 23, 2015 (UTC)

RfP

Can you vote at requests for promotion. --Sasquatch101 (talk) 22:34, January 23, 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations

Congratulations on re-gaining your Bureaucratic rights. Leo68 (talk) 18:34, January 24, 2015 (UTC)

Chat

Can you get in chat? Messi1983 (talk) 19:08, January 24, 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, hang on a sec. Jeff (talk·stalk) 19:09, January 24, 2015 (UTC)

Meatpuppetry

Jeff, could you explain why Boomer's vote was removed and what is "meatpuppetry"? ex: This  (talk) 19:45, January 24, 2015 (UTC)

Per our policy GTA_Wiki:Meatpuppetry, it is against the rules for editors to edit on this wiki soley to support or advance the agenda of another editor. Boomer hasn't made any edits to GTA Wiki since he left in May 2014 that didn't directly involve trying to help Sasquatch101 in some way or other. Jeff (talk·stalk) 19:50, January 24, 2015 (UTC)

Okay, now I understand, should a user edit on a wiki only to fill another user's agenda, he is violating the policy, I think this is fair, thanks. (talk) 19:55, January 24, 2015 (UTC)

RfP

I have no clue what makes you think that you can take my vote down and say I'm prohibited from voting. Sorry pal, but I've been contributing to this wiki for around 3 years, and I'll be dammed that I won't have a say in this wiki's future. I know you hate it when you don't get your way, but that doesn't mean you can twist the rules in your own favor. Boomer8 (talk) 19:59, January 24, 2015 (UTC)

About Sasquatch101

I told this already in the RfP page, but I will say to you again. Doesn't all this Yes (with conditions) already show that we are not ready to accept Sasquatch as part of the staff yet? You can't vote Yes for someone and still need to remind him of basic things to do like, be active and polite. If all this people who voted Yes doesn't trust the guy to do this little things, how he can be a fully patroler then? For me, this entire voting should be already finished. Do you honestly trust Sasquatch to handle this position? Do you believe that if another major vandal attack like the one before happens again, he will not do all that clusterfuck again? Because the only people that I believe would answer Yes to both of this questions, are Sasquatch puppets, and I know what you already think about then. DLVIIIL Talk 20:54, January 24, 2015 (UTC)

For the record, I'm not saying that the guy can never become a patroller ever again. If he behaves like an active and polite regular user here for some time, I'm wiling to vote Yes for him. But the fact that he vanished for so many time, and when he finally appears again, is to apply himself to be an admin, and then apply to be a patroller like if nothing had happened, only bothers me even more. DLVIIIL Talk 20:58, January 24, 2015 (UTC)

I don't agree that the Yes WIth Conditions thing is a good idea - if anything I think it's unfair to the person with the job to have a stigma of having it hanging over their head like that. In my opinion either we trust someone enough to promote them, or we don't. Like I said, my big worry is that Sasquatch can't handle his temper when he's pressed enough. He'll be a model editor for a year straight and then flip out unexpectedly. Jeff (talk·stalk) 21:03, January 24, 2015 (UTC)

Exactly, this stigma is bad for the person being promoted and the person who voted. Anyway, I just can't picture Sasquatch handling things very well for too long, wherever I think of him, the first think that pops into my mind is this incredibly childish complain that he had against GTA V. I don't know why. It was the first time that I talked with him and I guess it sticked with me. DLVIIIL Talk 21:19, January 24, 2015 (UTC)

Sasquatch will fail probation I think. Messi1983 (talk) 21:21, January 24, 2015 (UTC)

I see that you blocked Boomer8 permanently, I can't even imagine how well he must be taking that. DLVIIIL Talk 21:26, January 24, 2015 (UTC)

This happens every single time with Boomer. I actually think Sasquatch would do much better without Boomer always in his ear assuring him that he's perfect and stridently attacking anyone who suggests otherwise. Jeff (talk·stalk) 21:30, January 24, 2015 (UTC)

He really does that every time? Jesus. I wonder how this devotion for Sasquatch even started, I mean, theres friendship, but this is already starting to become weird. DLVIIIL Talk 21:37, January 24, 2015 (UTC)

He's Active?

I disagree. Apart from the RfP and community noticeboard, the only activity since early November has been to reinstate links to the Myths wiki over the last cuple of days which I would argue serve the Myths wiki more than they served this wiki. The September/November contributions wouild be less than what the demoted (inactive) guys had been doing in the last 4 months. smurfy ^(coms) 01:55, January 25, 2015 (UTC)

I've thought this over for a few hours and I think we should leave Myth hunter's vote up. If we're fanatical about meatpuppetry, there's going to be an Incident any time two guys who generally agree on things take the same side on an issue. I'd rather not bring it into consideration unless the editor in question is behaving really disruptively. That's the difference between Boomer/Sasquatch and any other set of editors who are friends. Myth hunter may be a friend and supporter of Sasquatch but he doesn't go around insulting the entire community for not worshipping him. I didn't realize that the only thing Myth hunter was doing was adding links to Myths Wiki though - that does change how I feel about him being here and voting on things a bit. Just not enough that I want to go around telling him he can't vote - telling people they can't vote should be a last-ditch thing to prevent disruption. Jeff (talk·stalk) 04:17, January 25, 2015 (UTC)

No, I was talking about Sasquatch's activity or lack thereof. He's the one that hasn't been contributing at all in terms of eligibility for promotion. MythHunter has been a little more consistently adding a couple of relevant edits a month, similar to the rate we were declaring the staff inactive, but not rated as completely inactive for a user by any means. Certainly not to the extent that would give rise to accusations of meatpuppetry and he should still be considered an eligible voter. smurfy ^(coms) 04:28, January 25, 2015 (UTC)

My fault, was reading on mobile and missing what was replying to what. Back home now though. My point on sasquatch's eligibility for promotion remains though. smurfy ^(coms) 04:44, January 25, 2015 (UTC) 

I agree. Jeff (talk·stalk) 05:16, January 25, 2015 (UTC)

New admin

I think we should knuckle down soon and start recruiting a new administrator. Messi1983 (talk) 10:29, January 25, 2015 (UTC)

Trouble with this is that most of the patrollers have only been promoted this month. Messi1983 (talk) 19:15, January 25, 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't want to promote an underqualified admin. Jeff (talk·stalk) 19:19, January 25, 2015 (UTC)

Neither do I. The longest serving patroller is Cloudkit I think. Messi1983 (talk) 19:20, January 25, 2015 (UTC)

How's he been doing at controlling his temper? I know that was sometimes an issue with him back in the day. Jeff (talk·stalk) 19:21, January 25, 2015 (UTC)

I think he is okay with it now. Messi1983 (talk) 19:22, January 25, 2015 (UTC)

He didn't vote or participate in any of the recent promotion requests, but he is active. Jeff (talk·stalk) 19:31, January 25, 2015 (UTC)

I am thinking probation for him if he ever does decide to apply for adminship. Mind you, I personally think we should do that for new staff members. Messi1983 (talk) 19:32, January 25, 2015 (UTC)

I'd probably vote for him if he ran, but I'm not going to ask anyone to run. Jeff (talk·stalk) 19:36, January 25, 2015 (UTC)

Neither am I. Messi1983 (talk) 19:49, January 25, 2015 (UTC)

Rename

Hey Jeff. Could tou rename this page? Theres no other "hater" in the series, so I don't know why they put this name in the page. DLVIIIL Talk 19:39, January 25, 2015 (UTC)

Admin

Hey Jeff, I was just checking your conversation with Dan, well, I think we need another admin but not right now, and I would say that the most qualified patroller is Smurfynz, but he just got promoted this month, I say give him a year or less and maybe he send a promotion request. (talk) 20:44, January 25, 2015 (UTC)

FYI

Left you a few more emails. Messi1983 (talk) 09:53, January 26, 2015 (UTC)

My Inactivity

Hey, Jeff. Long time, no speak. Listen, I apologize for my inactivity and my demotion. It's that I've been busy with school and I haven't had Internet in my home for a few months. And yeah, three edits for January isn't enough. Once I get Internet ("hopefully" by next month), I can retain my moderator position.

--Tony1998 (Talker * Blogger * Stalker)-- 20:28, January 27, 2015 (UTC)

You didn't get demoted from patroller, you just got moved to inactive. The wiki's rule says that we don't demote patrollers for inactivity and admins/bureaucrats who go inactive only get demoted to patroller, but the patrollers don't seem to understand that and keep filing demotion requests. If I'd been a bureaucrat at the time I'd have deleted the demotion and just moved you to inactive. Jeff (talk·stalk) 20:30, January 27, 2015 (UTC)

What? There was a single "inactive/demote" discussion and it was raised because all 5 had made enough irregular edits to avoid the automatic 3 month inactivity timer so couldn't really just be made inactive without discussion. Most of the patrollers and editors seem to have correctly understood that Tony would just be moved to inactive in accordance with the rule. In fact, 2 of the votes to demote Tony came from the two Bureaucrats. Leo and I had to remind Dan that all inactive staff should have retained Patroller rights unless they resigned. Before you fire "lack of understanding" shots, maybe you should check your aim.  smurfy ^(coms) 00:52, January 28, 2015 (UTC)

Bureaucrat

I spoke recently to Dan about becoming a Bureaucrat to fill the empty space you are temporarily occupying. I will consider Bureaucrat later in the year because I have bureaucratic rights on another site. For now I'd like to adjust to admin and see how I handle it. Leo68 (talk) 00:18, January 28, 2015 (UTC)

Rule change vote needed

Please see my post on the community noticeboard requiring Bureaucrat/Admin voting. Thanks smurfy ^(coms) 01:48, January 28, 2015 (UTC)

Myths Wiki Links

Hey McJeff. Why are you removing the links from the GTA Myths Wiki. On the Community Noticeboard, we agreed to have it once again as an affiliate of the wiki. I recently saw what happened with Boomer8, if that's the reason why you are removing the links, but I think removal of the wiki as an affiliate should be discussed with Sasquatch101 and MythHunter.  () 01:21, January 29, 2015 (UTC)Smashbro8

It just wasn't relevant to that particular article. Sorry for forgetting to use an edit summary. Jeff (talk·stalk) 01:35, January 29, 2015 (UTC)

It's okay, it happens. () 01:59, January 29, 2015 (UTC)Smashbro8

Reply

The promotion went as expected and that's fine. The whole situation that happened with Boomer though seems to be a little harsh. From what I read Boomer said no personal insults towards Messi and was just having an argument. I mean debate is healthy and good for anything (i.e. wikis, democracies, ect.) and I saw no indication that Boomer crossed a line and became hostile. I think Boomer just felt that he was being excluded from voting based on your and Messis' view that he is a meatpuppet. I can say that he speaks with a lot of passion and does generally agree with me as we have been editing together for over a couple years. He was very loyal to me during the whole Myths wiki fiasco that went down during the Gunshow2 incident. You know how crazy that was and I very much appreciate your help on that. Me and Boomer have a lot of history, we both love myths and I can say that he is a loyal, trustworthy editor and would be a great person to have here on the GTA Wiki.

Thanks, --Sasquatch101 (talk) 05:44, January 29, 2015 (UTC)