GTA Wiki:Community Noticeboard

Welcome to GTA Wiki's Community Noticeboard.

Archives Page to be archived after 30 requests, or after six months from earliest request (whichever is sooner)
 * Archive 1 (June 2011 - July 2011)
 * Archive 2 (July 2011 - April 2012)
 * Archive 3 (November 2012 - June 2013)
 * Archive 4 (June 2013 - August 2013)
 * Archive 5 (August 2013 - January 2014)
 * Archive 6 (January 2014 - January 2015)
 * Archive 7 (January 2015 - April 2015)
 * Archive 8 (May 2015 - October 2015)
 * Archive 9 (October 2015 - March 2016)
 * Archive 10 (March 2016 - August 2016)

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. Votes for the expiration of a Patroller's probation will also be held here.

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

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 user's 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.'''

Updating Diff Changes
So Wikia updated the default Diff Change Reviewer and I personally found it awful compared to the prior design. I've come up with a design that is consistent with our Wiki Tables, Infoboxes, Vehicle Performance Tables and Cleanup Banners. The code is located here and basically removes that awful black background on each diff line, replacing it with the original colors, updating borders to match tables, etc. I find this much better. I have two sets of code, they are reversed color scheme (first is dark on light, second is light on dark). Please insert on of the code sets into your personal wikia.css at a time to see how it looks - remember to purge the page and view a diff. :) Monk Talk 13:57, September 3, 2016 (UTC)

Votes

 * Yes - LS11sVaultBoy (Talk) 14:00, September 3, 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes - Mr. Ferrari (talk ) 14:08, September 3, 2016 (UTC)
 * No - TAlim 1994 - Konan T-A Lim 林道安  ( talk  |  contributions ) 17:57, September 3, 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes-- MythHunter 007  Talk 06:03, September 4, 2016 (UTC)

Comments

 * I haven't even looked yet lol, I trust you. I think I'll test them soon. Anything can be better than what we have. Maybe a complete rethink on the colors themselves - yellow and blue aren't very meaningful to me. Red and green are the most obvious approach, but maybe we could consider the two colors? Mr. Ferrari (talk ) 14:08, September 3, 2016 (UTC)
 * Could you post screenshot examples? Mind you, I didn't really mind Wikia's changes because the former background colors made it impossible to see added text. 16:53, September 3, 2016 (UTC)
 * I prefer the one on the left, with the green background and blue highlighting. LS11sVaultBoy (Talk) 17:15, September 3, 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah so do I. I was thinking of making the text a better color but idk yet. Monk Talk 17:17, September 3, 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the text color is good enough. LS11sVaultBoy (Talk) 17:19, September 3, 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with Rain that the former background colors made the highlighted text in the diffs next to impossible to see, and I am glad that Wikia changed their appearance to the current one. Admittedly, I do not see any need to change the colors from their current appearance, but if it is to be done the colors of the highlighted text must starkly contrast with the background (for example, dark blue or black highlighting on a white (or any light-colored) background, or white or yellow highlighting on a dark-colored background). In my opinion none of your two examples follow this rule closely enough, and unless it is changed I will not be approving this change. TAlim 1994 - Konan T-A Lim 林道安  ( talk  |  contributions ) 17:57, September 3, 2016 (UTC)
 * I prefer the former colours too. The new white on black is very difficult to read. Sam Talk 19:15, September 3, 2016 (UTC)
 * The one on left side looks good.-- MythHunter 007  Talk 06:03, September 4, 2016 (UTC)

Revamping Warnings and Blocks
Heyo. Some users may have noticed I have created this personal sandbox to which I follow in order to determine warnings and blocks. I've had numerous users claimed it is both information, professional and well laid out. I created it under the basis that the current Blocks and Warnings system on GTA Wiki is rather vague in terms of specific circumstances; everything seems to be based around three topics: sockpuppetry, vandalism, and image policy. In this sandbox, I have broken down these topics and listed what I personally think qualifies a block, a warning, and/or a certain amount of warnings. The table isn't exactly finished, but I have covered the basics of files, sockpuppetry, vandalism and underage users.

The table lists, from left to right: the action users commit, the response to the committed action, the maximum amount of warnings the user can receive (if more than 1, repeated actions), whether a block would be immediate (cannot be both this and previous), what happens after the maximum warnings have been reached, and two templates; warnings and blocks - the latter two are currently only used by me, it is basically an optional message that I place as a template underneath the block/warning to state what they have done - ignore them for now, we may come to them later if necessary.

I personally find it very systematic:


 * Creating a page with nonsensical content.
 * Article deleted
 * 1st instance is Vandalism notice.
 * 2nd instance is Warning.
 * 3rd instance is 1 week block.


 * Creating a page with racism, hate speech, pornographic material, etc.
 * Article deleted
 * 1st instance is immediate Infinite Block.


 * Damaging an article by: removing parts
 * Rollback of edit
 * 1st instance is Vandalism notice.
 * 2nd instance is Warning notice
 * 3rd instance is 1 week block.


 * Damaging an article by, deleting all content OR removing entire/multiple sections
 * Rollback of edit
 * 1st instance is immediate Infinite Block.

...etc. Basically most actions have two variables - a less "damaging" one, to which we respond less harsh to, and a more damaging one, which is usually an infinite block. These variables are something the current system has a lack on.

All in all I think this is really well conformed and hopefully irons out the punishment, as well as the common "hate" we receive for not having a systematic, fair blocking system. If you approve of the table (which is to be expanded), I'd also like you to tell me your personal opinion on the blocks and warnings, whatever the Staff come to a conclusion off will be what we nail down - the current blocks are just the system I have always followed, and what I think are best to punish users for bad actions.

Votes: "Yes" - to update the Warning and Blocking policies, "No" - to stick to our current, official system.

Think that's everything to say. Thanks! :) Monk Talk 13:35, September 3, 2016 (UTC)

Votes

 * Yes - LS11sVaultBoy (Talk) 13:59, September 3, 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes - <font face="Comic Sans MS">Mr. Ferrari (<font face="Comic Sans MS">talk ) 14:08, September 3, 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes (conditional) - TAlim 1994<font face="Segoe Script" color="Ghostwhite"> - Konan T-A Lim 林道安  ( talk  |  contributions ) 17:32, September 3, 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes - 18:58, September 3, 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes--<font face="Lucida Handwriting"> MythHunter 007  Talk 06:03, September 4, 2016 (UTC)

Comments

 * Sounds good. <font face="Comic Sans MS">Mr. Ferrari (<font face="Comic Sans MS">talk ) 14:08, September 3, 2016 (UTC)
 * While I am in general agreement with your new policy system, I disagree with the rule that removing an entire section (or sections) of an article, but not the whole article, should result in an immediate infinite block: rather, I believe that section removal should bypass a vandalism notice, instead going straight to a warning, then an infinite block if the same behavior continues. I regard such edits as within reasonable bounds of "good faith" edits if there is the potential that the user believed that the removed information was incorrect or inaccurate. Also, the edit summary of the offending user must also be taken into account (assuming of course that the user actually leaves an edit summary), as it may explain his/her reason(s) for removing the article section(s). Aside from that, I agree with your changes. TAlim 1994<font face="Segoe Script" color="Ghostwhite"> - Konan T-A Lim 林道安  ( talk  |  contributions ) 17:32, September 3, 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed about the first part; editing can rarely glitch out and cause an entire page or section to be blanked while it was not intended. 18:58, September 3, 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not voting because I disagree with the last part. I think article damage is to be dealt with the same way. The only change I suggest to make is to allow sysops to directly block users in case of large deletion of article content, rather than going through the warning/notice process. In fairness, first blocks should never be indefinite except in extreme cases, and I find it a shame that a lot of editors here fill up the block list because of indef bans for a single offense while a 1 or 2-week block usually does the trick. 19:05, September 3, 2016 (UTC)
 * I kinda agree actually. I think blocks should just go up in stages of 3 days, 1 week, 1 month, but never indefinite unless sockpuppetry. Maybe that's something we should change. <font size="4" face="Tahoma">Monk <font face="Tahoma">Talk 19:11, September 3, 2016 (UTC)
 * So what do we do? Go on with this vote or we close it and start a community discussion to overhaul the blocking guidelines? 20:25, September 3, 2016 (UTC)
 * I second what Rain says. I hold my hands up and say I can be guilty of inconsistently applying block lengths (sometimes the three strikes and you're out, other times an immediate ban). The blocking policy needs to be set in stone. <font size="5" face="Old English Text MT">Sam <font face="Old English Text MT">Talk 19:15, September 3, 2016 (UTC)