User talk:McJeff/Archive 02

Userbox font-family
How to change the font on userboxes from arial to times new roman? thank you. Lyrixn 08:59, August 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * , replacing the [ ] with < >.


 * Like so. McJeff (talk this way)/(stalk this way) 12:16, August 13, 2011 (UTC)

Images
I have restored some of the images I uploaded and attached licenses. Mind if I do the same for other useful, but unlicensed, images from other users? 涼宮ハルヒ(Suzumiya Haruhi) 18:35, August 13, 2011 (UTC)


 * Go right ahead. McJeff (talk this way)/(stalk this way) 12:39, August 14, 2011 (UTC)

Blocking the Vandals
Hi McJeff, it's Ilan xd, can you block User:Moe100.3, he vandaled in many characters pages and wrote wrong information about their age and status. Ilan xd 16:11, August 17, 2011 (UTC)

Trivia
Hey McJeff why are you deleting all the trivia? Ilan xd 15:15, August 18, 2011 (UTC)


 * Because it's the rules.


 * Besides, about half of the trivia that people post should go in the actual articles not just stuck on a trivia list at the bottom of the page, and the other half of the trivia is useless crap about as trivial as the sky being blue.


 * Trivia lists are just ugly sloppy useless natter magnets. McJeff (talk this way)/(stalk this way) 15:18, August 18, 2011 (UTC)


 * So put that information in the actual article? Ilan xd 15:24, August 18, 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes. McJeff (talk this way)/(stalk this way) 15:24, August 18, 2011 (UTC)


 * What if the trivia has been changed to Notes? will it be appropriate then? because some trivial facts are useless indeed like it says in the policy you mentionedUchiha.Sasuke.B 23:04, August 21, 2011 (UTC)

User rights
Hi Jeff, I accidentally removed my Bureaucrat rights, I removed the admin rights to see if it would say Bureaucrat next to my name in the new profile design, could you please give me them back, thanks :). Tom Talk 18:27, August 18, 2011 (UTC)


 * Doesn't matter Merrystar has sorted it. Tom Talk 19:36, August 18, 2011 (UTC)

Gregallz5
The guy has been harassing me for a few days. Should I block him? 涼宮ハルヒ(Suzumiya Haruhi) 05:12, August 19, 2011 (UTC)


 * Me harassing? I was telling 'em some truths it's not my fault that they wanna play the "H Card" just 'cause they wanna be little me 'bout stuff I knew, they started it, block 'em if it's gotta be someone getting blocked init?


 * I wouldn't say Greg is harassing you, Haruhi, so much as he's very poorly arguing his case by means of the "You're a foreigner and I'm not" fallacy. Unfortunately, I'm not qualified to know which one of you is right since I'm an American and not familiar with the US scene.  Haruhi I suggest you just ignore him for the time being, I've warned him about civility.  As for the content dispute Dan hasn't been active on the Wiki for a while, but I still talk to him on AIM so I'll ask him to weigh in if he gets a chance. McJeff (talk this way)/(stalk this way) 12:36, August 19, 2011 (UTC)

Patrollers
Hi Jeff, what do you think about making some of the users patrollers and giving them Rollback rights? We currently don't have any and I think we could do with some. Tom Talk 13:10, August 19, 2011 (UTC)


 * Sounds alright to me, there's quite a few users who I think would make good patrollers. McJeff (talk this way)/(stalk this way) 18:50, August 19, 2011 (UTC)


 * Shall I put something on the noticeboard or shall we just pick the users we think would make good patrollers? Tom Talk 21:45, August 19, 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm alright with whichever way you'd rather do it. McJeff (talk this way)/(stalk this way) 21:52, August 19, 2011 (UTC)

Rangeblock
Will that block prevent him from creating and using other accounts? Tom Talk 16:53, August 24, 2011 (UTC)


 * It usually helps a lot, although not completely. People determined to be serial vandals are usually obsessive enough that even if you range block them they'll keep trying to get around it, but it makes it much harder for them. Over on Bully Wiki Dan and I have a chronically determined vandal we call the "Girl Lover Vandal" (because he only edits the articles about the girls) that was what made me decide to learn how to rangeblock in the first place. McJeff (talk this way)/(stalk this way) 16:58, August 24, 2011 (UTC)


 * I hope he gets taken care of FOR GOOD! Everytime I look at him, I just get sick to my stomach. -Bunny J. Dying to talk to me? 17:01, August 24, 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah I totally know how you feel. Depends on the vandal, some actually amuse me (I get a real laugh whenever they accuse me of being gay), but some just bore me and some are real irritating.


 * Hattip, though - don't ever let a vandal see that they're making you angry. That's why they're vandalizing in the first place. McJeff (talk this way)/(stalk this way) 17:14, August 24, 2011 (UTC)
 * Why would someone call people gay? That's not even clever. Yeah, you're right, I shouldn't let them see that I'm angry. But, I'm just getting so damn sick of it. -Bunny J. Dying to talk to me? 17:21, August 24, 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey McJeff. Why Sulfur blocked Gangbanger. -- Ilan xd 19:41, August 24, 2011 (UTC)
 * Because I asked for a checkuser to find out who was behind the Ku Klux Clan vandal accounts. Sulfur ran it and it was Gangbanger.
 * As for the gay thing, when I was in middle school I thought calling things that I didn't like 'gay' was the height of comedy... maybe it's an age/maturity thing. McJeff (talk this way)/(stalk this way) 21:05, August 24, 2011 (UTC)
 * What a twist! Makes sense, though. He does write like the KKK user. He must have set-up that fight with Ku Klux Klan to make us think it wasn't him. I'm getting total Scooby-Doo moment right now. :) -Bunny J. Dying to talk to me? 21:13, August 24, 2011 (UTC)

Mike
The reason he knows that is because of the new wiki profile set-up. You can add your real name and it adds a section that says "aka [Name filled in]" Example; "aka John." Take a look at the profile, you'll see it too. -Bunny J. Dying to talk to me? 02:28, August 27, 2011 (UTC)


 * I can't see any of that because I edit from the Monobook skin not New Wikia Look, but thanks for the info. McJeff (talk this way)/(stalk this way) 03:23, August 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * M'kay. -Bunny J. Dying to talk to me? 03:24, August 27, 2011 (UTC)

"Mike"
I don't angry at you Jeff, I just didn't knew that he is that KKK user, things are realy crazy in this wiki, last days.

I'm not that KKK, just think: I am a Jewish and an Israeli, how can I be this man. He wrote on his wiki skin, "aka Mike" -- Ilan xd 12:50, August 27, 2011 (UTC)

Bulgarin
I've sent a request to Rockstar and I should have confirmation of Bulgarin's forename in the next few days. Tom Talk 16:11, August 27, 2011 (UTC)

D.I.V.O.R.C.E.
I was watching (had it on in the background to be honest) Eggheads on BBC2 and one of the question was about the song "D.I.V.O.R.C.E." by Billy Connelley, I was wondering would the mission D.I.V.O.R.C.E. had got it's name from that song as it was released round about the time Vice City Stories was set?MariaJaydHickment 18:32, August 31, 2011 (UTC)

Reply
Firstly, me and Bunny can have conversations however we want, don't try and put them on one page because neither of us want that, me, along with most users, don't talk on talk pages the way you do, we like to get the pop up so we know we have a new message.

If you write shit about the other Staff on your userpage I'm going to remove it, just like you'd do to any other user. And since you made your talk page a redirect to your userpage, I couldn't contact you, I don't like to talk about GTA Wiki problems on other wiki's, it should stay on this wiki. Honestly WikisEditor would say anything to get more Staff, he requested that pretty much every admin he could find apply as a sysop on the GTA Wiki, and I was the first. You are too strict, nobody actually cares about the copyright laws, if Take-Two or anyone else finds out and they decide to be as strict as you, they'll just ask us to get rid of whatever they want us to, they understand that fan sites are a good thing for them so I don't think they would care. I don't recall asking for a vote, if I did I know thats not the right thing to do in this situation. Oh, so after deleting 100 images or so you decided to do what you should have been doing already? I didn't know that, you really should have been doing it all along though, it would have saved me a bit of hassle.

You don't seem to appreciate all I have done for this Wiki, when WikisEditor took over all he was doing was copying pages from the Grand Theft Wiki, I was the one who deleted all the fan fiction and vandalism that had accumulated in the 6 months that the GTA Wiki had no Staff, frankly there was a lot and it took me along time to get this Wiki back to how it was before, then over Staff came in and we started developing the Wiki further, then you came in, which I was fine with as since the whole Seth thing I've have respect for you, well know I don't, you talk shit about Staff members, If you were pissed, fine just say that and it was just a heat of the moment thing, if it wasn't then I don't think the rest of the Staff will be thrilled with you staying around. Tom Talk 10:18, September 1, 2011 (UTC)

The only other thing I'll mention is that after Haruhi Suzumiya pointed out that I was deleting images and not repairing pages with broken image links I started cleaning up after myself, renaming images and adding templates, only deleting inappropriate or useless images. Which, of course, you know, so please don't make inaccurate claims to make me look bad. McJeff (talk this way)/(stalk this way) 04:40, September 1, 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry If I said anything that you took offense to, I do like you but I think the things you put on your userpage where a bit harsh, your a good Bureaucrat but I think there are better ways of getting your feelings about stuff out. I admit I am too leniant with copyright issues but on the L.A. Noire Wiki Take-Two, the parent company of Rockstar, contacted us about copyright stuff, they said we had to take down some info we'd put up which had been leaked but they were fine with us using any of there images, info, in game content etc. so I don't think there as strict with stuff as you think they'll be, I'll try and follow the copyright rules better in future. Anyway I'd prefer it if we just put this stuff behind us, I hope we can move on :). Tom Talk 14:34, September 1, 2011 (UTC)

Greg
Just a quick update, Greg created a sockpuppet, he posed as a woman, I asked Wikia to check it out and they have the same IP. Tom Talk 15:29, September 1, 2011 (UTC)

Bunnyjoke
Why did you block Bunnyjoke? The so called personal attack didn't really didn't seem bad, did he say something else that I missed? Tom Talk 13:13, September 2, 2011 (UTC)

Oh, ok then, I only found out about it when Ilan xd mentioned it in his request for promotion. Tom Talk 14:35, September 2, 2011 (UTC)

He left it on a GTA NiKo's and Bunnyjoke's talk pages too, I did a check user search on him and it said he shared an IP with Gtacrzy, I've sent another request to Wikia to make sure it wasn't a mistake though. Tom Talk 14:48, September 2, 2011 (UTC)

Sorry however earylier in the balacava page I made several edits more than I needed to see what I was trying to do was add hyperlinks however every time I tried doing it it didn't appear as the other links on the page can you deleate those edits behind the current one

Hey I just submitted what I felt was a valid easter egg that I have not been able to find documented anywhere. Some verification to whether or not it is well known would be much appreciated. R/gaming didn't seem the least bit interested and to be honest, I really wanna know how many other people this happened to.

Jeremiah.a.bullfrog 21:25, September 11, 2011 (UTC)

AIM
Message for you. Dan the Man 1983 16:52, September 12, 2011 (UTC)

Concerns
You guys seem absolutely ruthless. You block people on a first offence without any warning for not obeying a non-obvious rule, or not taking policy completely literally. Your comment suggesting that admins/bureaucrats are NEVER wrong and always overrule other users is also extremely worrying. Then when someone tries to discuss it with you, you delete their comment as "backtalk" as if you are a school teacher. You also make no attempt at all to help a user learn the right thing to do, and just gostraight to blocking as a first option. As an admin, you have a responsibility to help other users learn how to use the wiki, and not just blocking those who don't get it right.

My concern is that the staff here seem to consider themselves completely superior to the community. You forget that admins/bureacrats are regular users trusted with extra tools to keep the wiki running smoothly, they are not superior to or in charge of other users. I'm amazed you don't have a rule saying anyone who even disagrees with staff will be blocked, but that seems to be the direction this wiki is going in. Your comment of "if I see you revert me again or readd trivia, you're getting blocked for vandalism" is unbearable to read, as a long-term wiki bureaucrat myself.

Look at the Wikia Community Guidelines - they say: "If you think there is a problem, it's best to ask the user about the issue first, then take any additional steps if need be." That is very good simple advice that is not practiced here. Also see Wikia's Admin guidelines on blocking which say: "Admins are advised to give a warning to people before banning them", whilst here it says "For long blocks always consult other admins of the wiki" And looking at How to be a good Bureaucrat: "Don't abuse your powers,you have the power to remove admins and rollback's power don't abuse this by demoting someone because the upset you or you don't like them".

I strongly suggest that you re-think your management style, realise that staff are not automatically right, remember that no user is perfect, and have a bit of flexibility in your policy. You will get a LOT further with people by talking to them and helping them realise what is good/bad, than just going straight to your tools to block. If you know what my IRL job is, you'll see why I say that. Bunnyjoke had the right idea by saying he'd warn people for a minor offence, and block them if they repeated it (because that shows they're ignoring you, rather than just didn't understand the rules).

If you want a practical example, look at the block log. With the current staff team, you've had 100 blocks since June (3 months). Just 1 year ago, when I was in charge here, we had 35 blocks over the same 3-month period. (On GTW this year, just 14). That works out to 3 times as many blocks with this staff team than mine - and there are certainly not 3 times as many users or spammers. We resolved things by talking to users, helping them know what to do instead of edit warring, and the vast majority ended up being good contributors. Yes, some were just vandals and needed to be blocked, but almost NOBODY who tries to contribute is trying to be a vandal - they WANT to edit articles even if they don't go about it the right way.

I hope you don't take personal offence to this comment, it's nothing personal at all. But as the founder of this community, I understand it, and I believe the current management style is doing more damage than good. As Dan suggests here, I've brought it up on your personal talk page rather than in public at this time. Gboyers talk 21:50, September 12, 2011 (UTC)


 * Gboyers I just want to acknowledge that I've read this and I'm not ignoring it. You make some good points and some points that I just disagree with, and I want to sort all that out before I respond in full.


 * I understand that you've got vested interest in this wikia even though you've left it and that's completely alright with me, and you should feel free to post to my talk page. Dan and I've been editing together since 2006 when we met on Wikipedia's article on Bully, we think alike most of the time and an outside opinion is always good, especially an experienced one.


 * My biggest problem with what you've said is that you attributed our large block log specifically to our blocking policy, and I don't think that follows. A lot of those blocked users are sockpuppets.  Gregallz5 had four, a guy named Gtacrzy has had around a dozen.  In fact, I saw you characterize Gregallz on your wiki as "a new user who was trying to help".  No, more like a new user who came in aggressive and condescending, flamed people who tried to help him and claimed he was above the rules.  Gtacrzy had all sorts of issues, he violated copyright flagrantly and created sockpuppets to harass a user he was arguing with.  The other thing you have to take into account is that Wikia is growing in popularity rapidly.  We have more new users, and more users interested in vandalizing than you did at the same time.  We get many more new editors than you guys do because of how we show up higher in searches.


 * Now, you're entitled to think I'm quick to block, or that my blocks tend to be too long in duration. But honestly, generic criticism of "harshness" and "draconian policies" doesn't help me much - I know those opinions and I, as I've said, respect them but mostly disagree.  What I'd appreciate is, if you happen to take note of a situation and you feel that I've acted wrongly or with too much aggression, you confront me with that specific situation and, preferably, suggest how you think it should have been handled.


 * Also, since you've made the Competence policy the keystone of your disagreement with my style of running a wiki, you should note that it has yet to be invoked here on GTA Wiki and that on Bully Wiki it's been invoked less often than once a year. If you actually care, I'd be happy to run down the situation that resulted in the policy (and at the same time, demonstrate that I'm perfectly capable of bending over backwards to help a new user)  McJeff (talk this way)/(stalk this way) 07:02, September 13, 2011 (UTC)

In reply to the discussion here:

Hi there, if you have a problem, let me know. I was explaining my blocking policy to a new staff member on my site, using the policies that have been used here as an example. I wasn't complaining about your policies, trying to get you to change them, or trying to convince other users not to come here. I was not trashing you in public or denouncing this site, or doing anything that would affect you in any way.

The opinion I was expressing to that user was that a three-strike rule doesn't work because situations and users vary, and that strictly adhering to a prescriptive policy can cause more problems than it solves. I stand by that belief completely. But if you believe a prescriptive policy is better for you, great, you're entitled to. I was using this site as an example for a number of reasons. For one, our sites are very similar, having a huge percentage of identical content, and a very similar user base. Yes, this site currently gets more traffic, which quite rightly is a factor in determining policy, but that's all. I believe that since the wiki move, our policies and particularly our methods of operation have become fundamentally different, and I was using that difference to illustrate my reasoning.

Whilst my opinion may differ to yours, I don't see how I'm "lying" or what I would stand to gain from that, nor how it is even "trashing" you. This is not a personal attack against you - several people have been in charge here since we left, and there have been several iterations of policy over that time, not just yours. There is no need for you to get angry, swear ("bullshit") or misquote me. I did not say you were "corrupt" so please don't put that in quotes - that is lying.

In short, I believe the main difference is that I trust my staff to be fair, give everyone a chance, and to take action that is in the best interests of the wiki and its users, rather than what makes us look good. Even if users are "trashing" us, disagreeing with our methods, or even if we really don't like them - we always treat them fairly. Here, I've seen a number of situations where users have been treated unfairly because of a personal disagreement or dispute with a bureaucrat. I believe the policies here are too prescriptive for the junior staff (who are forced to follow them), whilst the senior staff seem to be able to do whatever they want - this could include blocking people they don't like or disciplining users for breaching rules that don't exist.

Since you asked me to be specific, I will be. One example of a block I believe to be unwarranted is Bunnyjoke's, which the block log states was for this edit, because he implied that a bureaucrat was lying. That is an absolutely ridiculous way to treat your users, never mind your staff. No warning, no debate, no discussion, just a block. I didn't even know "implying a staff member was lying" was against a rule!! You specifically said here that I was lying, and I'm a former bureaucrat, so you should be blocked for a week then, right? I know that former staff should be treated the same as current staff anyway, so why would this situation be different? Because you're allowed to say and do what you want but nobody else is? That doesn't sound very fair to me.

Then there was this comment where you sarcastically threaten him, saying that he could not edit despite giving back his administrator privileges? What an unusual situation - it's almost like you were trying to get him to do something wrong so that you could ban him. You also stated that since he admitted holding a grudge, that "you have voided your right to have any say in anything regarding my participation on this wiki". So because he doesn't agree with you, he's not allowed to disagree with you? That doesn't sound fair either. He has a right to an opinion, and to start taking "rights" away from him because his opinion differs to yours is exactly the sort of problem I've been talking about.

I hope you can see that I'm not "trashing" your site, don't forget I made it. I simply disagree with some of the ways this site is being run - and I'm entitled to disagree. If you are trying to get be blocked (by complaining to Dan) because I disagree, then I think you would prove me right. Gboyers talk 23:33, September 14, 2011 (UTC)


 * The Bunnyjoke situation is what I call a "bureaucratic mess" (not because it involves me and I'm a bureaucrat, but because it's a tangled mess of difs and red tape), so I'll address it last.


 * To start with, WikisEditor is not "treated like an administrator". That's an old dif, even if it does come from one of the current bureaucrats.  1) He's treated like a user who got desysopped forcibly for plagiarism, and 2) he doesn't edit here anymore anyway. In fact, and I only just noticed this, 3) he's been globally blocked across all of Wikia (I don't know why).


 * Our policies are generally written harshly and then, theoretically, not enforced anywhere near as harshly as they're written. The reason they're written that way is because I've had a number of negative experiences with "rules lawyers" both on Wikipedia and Wikia, and strictly worded rules gives them less leeway to try and twist words.  The blocking policy as written, you're right - it's very poorly written.  That's not literally how it's applied, either.  The "three strikes" policy is for chronic trouble making users - you know, the type like Gregallz5 who have no intention of ever following any of the rules.  It's hard to pin down what to do about usually good editors who make an occasional bad edit to a science, and honestly, it's never had to be applied because good users ask questions, and I'm perfectly capable of seeing a good user make a mistake and say "dude we're not supposed to do it like that" instead of blocking him.


 * Dan and I've both agreed we need to start making shorter blocks and communicating more with other editors, specifically because you called attention to our extreme and possibly counter-productive lack of tolerance. A lot of the more egregious blocks were done by The Tom, who while mostly an excellent editor had a bad habit of overblocking and/or failing to notify the blocked editor of what he did wrong.


 * I thought I did read in one of your prior posts that you called us corrupt; if you didn't, please accept my apologies. Also, I don't use politi-speak. I was asking Dan what he thought about the situation, not if it was 'ok to block you' - if I wanted to block you but thought I needed outside input, or someone else to pull the trigger, I'd ask for just that.  That was not a block threat, veiled or otherwise, and I don't want you to feel threatened with being blocked by it.


 * The thing about voting, which a lot of people don't seem to understand, is that it is not and never has been purely democratic. Votes must be informed, and going as far back as wikipedia bureaucrats have had the right to discount uninformed/misinformed and or overly biased votes.


 * Now, Bunnyjoke. The situation with him is what I call a "bureaucratic mess", and he and editors like him are the reason I can have low tolerance and enforce policies harshly.  All the administrative actions I took against him were above board and by the rules.  Blocking him was legitimate, telling him he didn't get to vote on anything involving me was legitimate.  Staff are supposed to be able to maintain their neutrality and rationality when it comes to editing the wiki.  Bunnyjoke, however, his first thought was always to criticize me.  My talk page is/was full posts from Bunny where he yelled at me over some perceived slight.  I tried to be nice to him, quite hard, but he decided from the minute that I voted 'no' on his request for promotion he didn't like me, and he was very blatant that he intended to do whatever he could to get me demoted and driven off GTA Wikia.  I ignored all this because any response I made to him, whether attempted reconciliation or advice, resulted in more posts-made-in-a-wailing-tone on my talk page.  However, Bunny's problem editing wasn't just directed at me.  He got promoted during a brief period where everyone who applied for a promotion was getting it because we had so few staff here, and both other bureaucrats subsequently admitted that promoting him was a mistake - Dan even wanted to demote him for good, although he relented.  We also had an issue with Bunny, in one of his fits against me, threatening to undo a block I made if I blocked another editor.  Wheel-warring is a very, very serious offense for administrators.  here was the initial threat to undo a block, and here is the warning he was given.  My post on his talk page may have been unnecessarily harsh, and I deleted some of his comments off my talk page once with a rude edit summary, but it's very difficult to never snap back a bit when dealing with a user who is continually hassling you.


 * As for Bunny's block, that was completely above board and I would state that to anyone. "Casting negative aspersions" has always been a violation of Civility, and Bunny was definitely doing that when he accused Dan of lying to cover up for me.  I could have been a little bit more politically expedient and waited for Dan to block, or asked Tom to do so, but there comes a point where I will enforce the rules by what I think is the spirit of them, even if my actions don't match up to the very letter.  Either Dan or Tom could have undone that block if they'd thought I was wrong; neither of them did, or if they did they didn't say so. In fact, Dan was inactive during most of the incident and Tom didn't want to deal with it either as an authority figure or mediator - in fact wiki-political problems like that are why he stepped down as bureaucrat from GTAWikia.


 * So that's the problem with situations like Bunnyjoke's. I know there are policy-based rebuttals against what I just said about the incident. It's one of those things that could go on indefinitely as to whether he, I, both of us or neither of us were out of line and if so what should be done. But when he actually stepped out of line completely I took what I felt was the appropriate action - a one day block. Anything he said or did after that was his own decision.  Jeff (talk this way)/(stalk this way) 01:08, September 15, 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your civil reply. The edits you have made to the blocking policy show a much better stance (although not perfect). By making those edits, I take it you agree with some of my points.

The main contradiction was that whilst you had a very strict policy (and sought to block/demote people who didn't follow it to the letter), you personally acted outside of it (often correctly) on several occasions, and you realised yourself that it wasn't perfect. It seems to me that it was those double-standards that caused the bunnyjoke issue.

I still don't understand the reason for his block - he denied an accusation, implying that the accusation was incorrect, which you took to imply that the accusor was lying. I don't see how that is a breach of civility. Perhaps if he said "OMFG YOU ARE A LIAR" or started throwing around personal insults, sure. But saying something is untrue doesn't make it uncivil. You have called me a liar and I've disagreed with you - but it's still been rather civil.

As for the "grudge", I really don't see how someone disagreeing with you (even on MANY occasions) amounts to a personal grudge. I disagree with a lot of things you have done (from supporting the wrong wiki, to enforcing bad policies) but I don't have a personal grudge. I still have the right to an opinion, and to express that (as long as I am civil etc). Bunnyjoke does not "void" or forfeit all rights to be part of debates and votes just because he disagrees with you - THAT would be completely unfair, unwarranted and totalitarian. Yes, if he was a sockpuppet, vandal, spammer or other delinquent, I would disregard his votes. However a staff member that disagrees with another staff member does not fall into that category. Everyone has bias and preferences, and often there is no right/wrong answer, but removing someone's rights just because they disagree with you is wrong, full stop.

As for using Wikipedia as an example, I'd be hesitant to do that. There are many things that they do which I strongly disagree with, and MANY users came to GTW because of the awful way Wikipedia is run (in many quarters).

You are right that voting and democracy are not the same thing. GTW is a democratic community, even though we don't vote on everything. We maintain democracy by taking everyone's opinion into account, by being transparent, and by always being open to disagreement and debate. If you look at the US, the President is not directly elected, the people elect colleges of representatives who in turn elect the President. In the UK, nobody votes for a Prime Minister, they vote for their local MP, and their party affiliation decides which party's leader becomes PM. Nobody votes for specific policies or laws, but they trust their MPs to select the right ones.

Here, it seems that whilst people can vote, a bureaucrat can ignore their votes, end the vote early, or make decisions without votes whenever they want. That is not a democratic society. You also make huge decisions when only 3 or 4 people vote, despite 1271 users editing here in the last 91 days. That is making a decision with 0.3% of users voting, which is not as fair as you might like to believe.

You are right that it is often hard to remain impartial and civil in the face of personal harassment and insults. However, it is absolutely critical that you do. If you start being short, start swearing, or react angrily, you void your right to discipline others for that. I'm a cop IRL, and if I arrested someone for swearing and being disruptive, then I started to swear and insult them, I'd lose all credibility and it would completely undermine my professionalism, the case against them and even my job. You won't find any edits from me where I am insulting users or swearing at them, because I know on my wikis I have a job to do. Who cares if someone harasses me, it's just a wiki. If they don't want to be a part of the community, they don't have to be, and they are free to leave.

I hope you understand I have no desire to personally attack you, but I have every right to comment on the methods used here on another site. You should remember that on this site, you are just another user with a couple of extra tools and a bit of responsibility. You don't have the right to do whatever you want just because you feel like it, nor do get rid of people just because they disagree with you. This is a community site, built by a community that you were NOT part of until a year ago. As the founder, I chose to make this site community-led, as a benevolent dictator. Even if you have been selected as one of the bureaucrats, you have no right to come here and take over and turn it into a totalitarian site. You are supposed to be a First Servant, not a GodKing or a Vested Contributor with the tools to do whatever you want. I hope you realise that. Gboyers talk 14:29, September 15, 2011 (UTC)

GTA 5 wishlist
i so agree with you i miss 20 differnet littletown and 3 huge towns plus flamethrower and rampages

Signature
What's wrong with big signature tom uses big ones