GTA Wiki:Community Noticeboard

Welcome to GTA Wiki's Community noticeboard.

Archives Talk page rules apply here.
 * Archive 1
 * Archive 2
 * Archive 3

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.

Anonymous Users Should be Allowed
I have noticed on many active wikis that anonymous users are allowed. And when you check some of these wiki's recent wiki activity you'll see that a large amount of edits are done by anonymous users. So what I'm trying to say is that GTA Wiki should allow unregistered users to edit freely. This would make the wiki much more active and encourage some of these anonymous users to sign up and become registered users. Sure there may be a vandal here and there, but with the large staff this could easily be stopped. And if possible, an admin or Bureaucrat could block the Anonymous User account for a week. Please consider this as I believe this could do great for the wiki. Boomer8 (talk) 04:37, June 8, 2013 (UTC)

Votes

 * Yes - Boomer8 (talk) 04:37, June 8, 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes - Sasquatch101 (talk) 04:42, June 8, 2013 (UTC)
 * No - Mikey Klebbitz (talk) 11:16, June 8, 2013 (UTC)
 * NO - ILan ( XD &bull; Edits &bull; Home ) 11:07, June 9, 2013 (UTC)
 * No - Messi1983 (talk) 12:29, June 9, 2013 (UTC)
 * No - Jeff (talk|stalk)
 * Oh Hell No - Cloudkit01 (talk) 13:26, June 9, 2013 (UTC)
 * No - Dodo8 Talk  14:12, June 9, 2013 (UTC)
 * No -Mr. T., That&#39;s Me! (talk) 03:49, June 10, 2013 (UTC)
 * No JBanton (Talk | Contribs) 06:53, June 10, 2013 (UTC)
 * No - Tom Talk 10:00, June 11, 2013 (UTC)
 * No - --Thomas0802 (talk-Edits) 17:41, June 17, 2013 (UTC)

Comments

 * The GTA Myths Wiki as well as others I see allow anonymous users and I don't think it would be a big deal. We should try it out; but if there is lots of vandals then reverse it. Sasquatch101 (talk) 04:42, June 8, 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but what if some of them are anon vandals? - Mikey Klebbitz (talk) 11:16, June 8, 2013 (UTC)
 * Same as Mikey. It is not a secret that any second anon is a vandal: it is impossible to trust anons, at least in my eyes. Sure, Wikia is all about making a community, but anons are a different story. -- ILan ( XD &bull; Edits &bull; Home ) 11:07, June 9, 2013 (UTC)
 * There will not be "a vandal here and there". There will be dozens of vandals per day. Just think about it this way - Wikia and Wikipedia tout their everyone-can-edit rule like it's a religion. For them to turn off anonymous editing completely on this wiki just proves the magnitude of the anonymous vandalism problem this wiki once had. In fact, I'd bet that even if this resolution passes, Wikia Staff would veto it. Jeff (talk|stalk) 12:33, June 9, 2013 (UTC)
 * We already have problems with registered users, unregistered users would bring even more problems. But I agree we should have more Admins. For example, there's some guy who is adding Fanon content and me and Jeansowaty are the only one who spotted him? I'm voting No.  Dodo8 Talk
 * We already have problems with registered users, unregistered users would bring even more problems - Sums it up perfectly. Messi1983 (talk) 22:56, June 9, 2013 (UTC)
 * As per Dan's last comment. JBanton (Talk | Contribs) 06:53, June 10, 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, that ended up quickly. -- ILan ( XD &bull; Edits &bull; Home ) 13:02, June 10, 2013 (UTC)
 * thumbs up the last comment* - Mikey Klebbitz (talk) 22:34, June 10, 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Jeff and Dodo. While I do allow anonymous users to edit on the other Wiki's I run, this Wiki is just too big for that, there are already a lot of users, adding unregistered users to that would make this place almost unmanageable. I think I was the only one around when this Wiki was abandoned, pretty much every unregistered user was a vandal, and it took an incredible amount of time and work to get this Wiki to what it is now, allowing unregistered users will be a step backwards. Tom Talk 10:00, June 11, 2013 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, I disagree but not at all. The bad part is, that each day we need to check if these new users are doing good edits, reasonable work, and don't messing up with the pages, we had a lot of problem with it. --Thomas0802 (talk-Edits) 17:44, June 17, 2013 (UTC)

WE NEED MORE STAFF- Raise the Admin limit to 8
Currently the GTA Wiki has 3 Bureaucrat, 5 Admins, & '''8 Patrollers. '''Once GTA V is fully released there will be a flood of new users. Some users will be good editors, some will unintentionally make mistakes and others will be vandals. My proposal would be to have one of 8 patrollers assigned to one of 8 admins. This would make it easy for one admin not to get overwhelmed with his duties. Of course patrollers could still contact another admin and fellow patrollers but this new reporting system would improve the responce time as in the past, vandals were not stoped for a while. It would almost be like individual teams that would make up the whole GTA staff. I hope you all consider this great plan to assure a promt responce in any situation that could damage the GTA Wiki. Sasquatch101 (talk) 02:52, June 10, 2013 (UTC)

Proposal

 * 3 Bureaucrats
 * 8 Admins (assigned one patroller)
 * 8 Patrollers (assigned one admin)
 * Staff total: 19 (18.75% increase)

Votes

 * Yes - Sasquatch101 (talk) 02:52, June 10, 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes and No - Mr. T., That&#39;s Me! (talk) 04:12, June 10, 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes - Boomer8 (talk) 04:29, June 10, 2013 (UTC)
 * No JBanton (Talk | Contribs) 06:59, June 10, 2013 (UTC)
 * No -  Dodo8 Talk  07:20, June 10, 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes - VaultBoy Tom (Talk to me this way) 11:38, June 10, 2013 (UTC)
 * No - ILan ( XD &bull; Edits &bull; Home ) 13:10, June 10, 2013 (UTC)
 * No - Tom Talk 13:50, June 10, 2013 (UTC)
 * No - Messi1983 (talk) 19:15, June 10, 2013 (UTC)
 * No - Mikey Klebbitz (talk) 22:50, June 10, 2013 (UTC)
 * Probably - Cloudkit01 (talk) 03:57, June 11, 2013 (UTC)
 * No - Jeff (talk|stalk) 13:45, June 11, 2013 (UTC)
 * No - istalo (Leave me a message) 14:33 ,June 12, 2013

Comments

 * As I stated above this proposal is about further limiting the potential damage vandals and confussed users can do on the wiki. This "team" system will also allow for a faster responce time and more organized effort to secure the GTA Wiki agginst potential threats.
 * I partially agree with this. I do agree that we need three more admins and patrollers to keep the Wiki smooth running. However, the staff can't be on the Wiki all day. We have lives outside the Interweb and the Wiki. That's a problem (and I contribute to that) that will never be resolved. Mr. T., That&#39;s Me! (talk) 04:09, June 11, 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't really see any logic in assigning patrollers to certain admins to report an issue. I don't think any admins are getting "overwhelmed". And about raising the amount of admins to eight seems a little high, but the release of GTA V may call for this. I'm not sure. I'll think about it. Boomer8 (talk) 04:29, June 10, 2013 (UTC)
 * We already have enough admins and bureacrats to cover the different times zones, except the far east. The only new additions to the Bureacrat and Admin team should be from the far west or far east, so that we have strong coverage for each time zone. JBanton (Talk | Contribs) 06:59, June 10, 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree we should have more admins, yesterday we were 3 active patrollers who spotted that vandal, but we couldn't stop him until an Admin logged in. Since I'm one of the patrollers who wants to be promoted in the future, my vote won't count anyway. Also, 8 Admins seems a little too much, in my opinion 7 would be enough. Dodo8 Talk
 * Yeah, I think it would be a good idea to have more admins, but as Dodo said, it would be a bit too much with 8. VaultBoy Tom (Talk to me this way) 11:38, June 10, 2013 (UTC)
 * We don't need more admins, but we do need more patrollers: 6 admins is enough (for now) and our cuurent limit for patrollers is 8 anyway (so your proposal doesn't increases this limit). I personally think that limit for patrollers should be increased to 12.-- ILan ( XD &bull; Edits &bull; Home ) 13:10, June 10, 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ilan. That's why we're currently allowing requests to become a patroller. But I think we have enough admins at the moment. It's exam time for some admins, hence the current inactivity of me among others, so that may explain why nobody was available at the time. We can revisit this idea in a couple of months, if it's still an issue then we may implement some changes. Tom Talk 13:50, June 10, 2013 (UTC)
 * We will check this issue during the summer holiday. If there will be periods of time when no staff will be present I consider we should agree to make the staff bigger. Dodo8 Talk
 * Okay, a couple of points.
 * First of all, Dodo, your vote does count.
 * Secondly, I believe we should discuss whether to take on a new admin when GTA V is released, or a little beforehand, so we can deal with the inevitable bad edits, vandalism, arguments over content, and new members.
 * Thirdly, this idea of assigning a patroller to a certain admin is not logical, and is ridiculous in my opinion. Messi1983 (talk) 19:26, June 10, 2013 (UTC)
 * I hadn't read the part about patrollers assigned to admins. I agree with Dan on that, and on everything else he said. Tom Talk 09:48, June 11, 2013 (UTC)
 * Not sure if this is the place to put this, but admins and bureacrats do have those boxes urging people to message us. If any one of our editors actually left me a message I would have been able to come and sort out the issue. When I was patrolling I would send messages to every last admin; if other editors did so as well, there would be a greater chance of a quick solution. I still believe that if we do we need an admin, they should be at least GMT +5. JBanton (Talk | Contribs) 20:40, June 10, 2013 (UTC)
 * Good point. Tom Talk 09:48, June 11, 2013 (UTC)
 * If we're having more admins, make it one more, not three. - Mikey Klebbitz (talk) 22:50, June 10, 2013 (UTC)
 * My whole logic is that patrollers really don't have any power to stop an aggressive vandal which is why we need more editors with blocking power. The number 8 for admins makes sense since there will be 8 patrollers. The problem isn't that there is not enough patrollers, but rather there isn't enough admins. Adding three admins would fill the gaps that are missing at the moment. As it is there are vandals; once V is out, bet that number to double. Everyone has there own time they are active, so more admins would further protect the wiki. The time is now to be prepared for the near future. Sasquatch101 (talk) 03:39, June 11, 2013 (UTC)
 * The thing about admins is that being an administrator is a much bigger deal than being a patroller. Administrators have to be patient, reliable, responsible, and knowledgeable about GTA Wiki's policies - even the unpopular ones like the Image policy. We've promoted one admin who would plead with vandals to pleasepleaseplease be nice instead of blocking them while they laughed in his face and kept vandalizing, and we've promoted one admin who wasn't even remotely qualified and ended up getting demoted for saying there was nothing for him to do. That's why I'm very hesitant when it comes to promoting people to admin, and to opening promotion back up again. Opening up a position for one more administrator is something I'd probably vote in favor of if someone made that proposal, but another thing I want to make clear - an empty spot doesn't guarantee that any particular person's going to get the position, and an empty spot doesn't mean that there's any great urgency to fill that spot. Admins need to be qualified and reliable. Jeff (talk|stalk) 13:44, June 11, 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. Being an admin doesn't make you god of that wiki. Most wikis I visit just to read have a crap load of admins, yet, they don't do a damn thing. Promoting someone an admin, they will go AWOL then causes disturbances and disputes. If we ever do promote a Patroller to Admin, we can't take their word for it; we need to check if the user has good, quality edits and check if the user is on good terms. As for the Patrollers, we are only given the Rollback tool Chat blocking tool. What you said about how they (we) can't stop aggressive vandals, that could be a problem. Even worse if there are no admins active. This request on this noticeboard is a yes and no to others and I and when it closes, this is something I could look back on after the release of GTA V. Mr. T., That&#39;s Me! (talk) 18:02, June 11, 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm voting Yes because of what Sasquatch just said. Once GTA V is out there will be more confused new users and vandals. It would be smarter to get new admins now and prepare, rather than later.  Boomer8 (talk) 16:58, June 11, 2013 (UTC)
 * What about the proposal to assign on admin to one patroller? My first point was that this would improve the responce time to a vandal. What I was also thinking was that it would make sure admins and patrollers are very involved, and performing their job. Of course taking a couple days off is normal, but this new system would weed out the editors that have lost interest and would freeup positions for enthusiastic editors. We could also have a reward system where the team with the most edits that month get a badge or some recognition in the wiki community. The team system would not only be a fun reward system, but a functional tool to make sure everyone is performing in their position. Sasquatch101 (talk) 02:39, June 12, 2013 (UTC)
 * As both I and other people have said, if anyone catches a rampaging vandal (by which I mean someone vandalizing as many pages as he can manage, not just a drive-by vandal) they shouldn't edit war with the vandal - they should inform all of the admins and b'crats and then completely ignore the vandal. Even if the vandal gets fresh and tries to remove the message, the admins will still get the "you have new messages waiting" and have the sense to check their talk page history to see what's going on if they don't see any new messages. There's no reason to assign patrollers to individual admins. Jeff (talk|stalk) 02:59, June 12, 2013 (UTC)

PS.: Arrrrrghhhh I don't have much time to see the new updates, beacause the school is killing me (not really, but you know right...). Bloody hell, I'll try to check posts, this friday ok? istalo (Leave me a message) 14:33, June 12, 2013
 * Ok ok, what about we raising at least to 1 more bureaucrat, and 2 admins? That wouldn't be a bad idea...
 * There'll always have to be an odd number of bureaucrats, since there are occasional bureaucrat-only votes. And what I said about promoting people to admin goes double for promoting them to b'crat. Jeff (talk|stalk) 14:55, June 12, 2013 (UTC)
 * I thought better and I changed my vote to No. I believe we should have 1 or 2 more admins, and maybe a few more patroller, but is fine for now. Dodo8 Talk

Dodo8 Talk

Affiliation with Watch Dogs Wiki
I know since the beginning of time this wiki has been running completely on its own. The Watch Dogs Wiki has many similarities with GTA wikia; it uses similar framework as I quite like the GTA wiki setup and similar category networks. I think it would be nice if we could get some more editors interested in editing there. I don't want to put too much emphasis on the affiliation so just a picture link on the main page somewhere would be all. Also linking the two titles together could be beneficial to readers, as the two games share a lot in common as well. JBanton (Talk | Contribs) 08:04, June 12, 2013 (UTC)

Votes

 * Yes - ILan ( XD &bull; Edits &bull; Home ) 16:07, June 12, 2013 (UTC)
 * No - Sasquatch101 (talk) 02:58, June 13, 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes - istalo (Message) 15:52, June 13, 2013
 * Yes - Dodo8 Talk
 * Yes - Mikey Klebbitz (talk) 17:50, June 13, 2013 (UTC)
 * No --Thomas0802 (talk-Edits) 17:49, June 17, 2013 (UTC)

Comments

 * It doesn't really important if the two titles share similar features, as even the wikis with the most different subjects can become affiliated. I do think, however, this is a very good idea and may open a door us to affiliate with more Wikis. -- ILan ( XD &bull; Edits &bull; Home ) 16:07, June 12, 2013 (UTC)
 * To say Watch Dogs Wiki should be an affiliate to the GTA Wiki really makes no sense. It is not related to GTA in any way; that alone should be the deal killer. Saints row is a GTA clone, and has very similar attributes, but it is not GTA and therefore should not be able to tap into the GTA network. Grand Theft Answers and Rockstar Games Wiki should really be the ones considered affiliates at the moment. Sasquatch101 (talk) 02:58, June 13, 2013 (UTC)
 * You don't seem to understand the affiliation concept; (as ILan pointed out) the topics don't have to be similar in order for an affiiliation to be made; do some research - look at other wikis that belong to affiliate groups. One thing that I love about Wikia is the community that exists and the various wikis with interesting information, social integration is something tha we could do with, for our own editors and maybe to attract new talent.
 * Plus it would be good for readers to have quicker access to other wikis that we affiliate with. Limiting our affiliation just to GTA-related wikis, kind of defeats the object of community integration and linking.
 * " It is not related to GTA in any way " - a view that indicates little research done before speaking. I suggest people do some research before voting if they wish to agree with this statemnt. JBanton (Talk | Contribs) 09:39, June 13, 2013 (UTC)
 * Well I see no problem to affiliate with other wiki, and plus as Ilan said, it's a good idea... istalo (Message) 15:52, June 13, 2013
 * It's a good idea! Also, we should list the Rockstar Games Wiki too. Dodo8 Talk
 * Go ahead. And like Dodo said, you should add the Rockstar Games Wiki too. - Mikey Klebbitz (talk) 17:50, June 13, 2013 (UTC)
 * Credit to Sasquatch, it was his idea :) Dodo8 Talk
 * In that case, good idea Sasquatch. - Mikey Klebbitz (talk) 20:52, June 13, 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Sasquatch101 (talk) 02:18, June 14, 2013 (UTC)
 * @Jbanton, You have a real pissy tone in your responce to the comment I made which is a sign that you are a very insecure person. Now thats out of the way, you should look at the wikis that are GTA wiki affiliates and note it's only GTA related.  I very much understand the affiliates concept as I was the one who lobbied for an affiliates section on this wiki. I know you have been fighting to get your foot in the door over at "watch dogs wiki" as an admin, but that is no reason to use the GTA Wiki name as a way to boost activity on an ill qualified wiki. YOU who should be looking out for this wiki, not others you are trying to boot activity on for your own reputation. Sasquatch101 (talk) 02:18, June 14, 2013 (UTC)
 * We don't have affiliates, hence why I have this proposal here.
 * You really should research; I've been an admin there for a little while actually, your misconceptions and naivety ("use the GTA Wiki name as a way to boost activity on an ill qualified wiki") are uncalled for and poorly founded.
 * GTA Wiki belongs to Wikia, editors don't have to pledge full allegiance to one topic. Also this is not the place for (poorly researched) personal atacks. JBanton (Talk | Contribs) 07:04, June 14, 2013 (UTC)
 * Stop it, guys. You're part of the GTA Staff, you shouldn't fight eachother. Dodo8 Talk
 * Enough! No more personal attacks. Both of you need to calm down.  - Mikey Klebbitz (talk) 20:34, June 14, 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if we are allowed to add amendments or that sort of thing to proposals, but could we also affiliate with other Rockstar title wikis, such as Read Dead Wiki and Midnight Club wiki? JBanton (Talk | Contribs) 17:19, June 17, 2013 (UTC)
 * Nah, I think we should be affiliated or "allied" to Wikis only with the Rockstar Games as the developer/publisher, Watch Dogs could be a nice game but it has nothing to share with GTA. --Thomas0802 (talk-Edits) 17:49, June 17, 2013 (UTC)

Edit Requirement
I've noticed that some staff members (I won't name names) are inactive sometimes. So to ensure that the GTA Wiki staff is active and doing their job properly, we should have a "three strike rule". What I'm saying is that  if a staff member didn't produce 30 edits at the end of the month, that person would recieve "a strike". And if that peticular staff member recieved three stikes in one year, he or she would be demoted. This sytem would make sure every staff member is quallified for their job and flush out the ones who are not. This would also possibly open up staff positions for people who are quallified for the job, rather than the ones who are not. For an active and quallified staff member 30 edits a month should not be a problem; if it is, then you are not cut out for the job and are just holding up precious staff positions. One edit a day is not too much to ask for. And to make sure every staff member is producing 30 edits a month, three trusted editors at the end f each month whould check every one of the staffs contributions.

Proposition:
Please vote and leave a comment. Thankyou. Boomer8 (talk) 03:44, June 17, 2013 (UTC)
 * 30 edits are required each month by a staff member.
 * If 30 edits are not executed, that staff member will recieve a strike.
 * If a staff member recieves three strikes in a year, he or she is demoted.
 * Edit counters - Three trusted staff members who check the staff's contributions each month.

Votes

 * Yes - Boomer8 (talk) 03:47, June 17, 2013 (UTC)
 * No - Dodo8 Talk
 * No - Tom Talk 11:58, June 17, 2013 (UTC)
 * No - JBanton (Talk | Contribs) 12:50, June 17, 2013 (UTC)
 * No - Jeff (talk|stalk) 14:59, June 17, 2013 (UTC)
 * Absolutely Not - Mr. T., That&#39;s Me! (talk) 15:25, June 17, 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, great idea! --Thomas0802 (talk-Edits) 17:59, June 17, 2013 (UTC)
 * No - Mikey Klebbitz (talk) 19:23, June 17, 2013 (UTC)

Comments

 * I think this is a great idea, and is an easy edit requirement for a staff member. Boomer8 (talk) 03:47, June 17, 2013 (UTC)
 * This would be useless if the staff member knows the rule. It ain't that hard to produce 30 edits a month. Dodo8 Talk
 * Thirty edits are quite easy to produce, and the staff are required to have administration skills, not just editing. Also the introduction of the system would penalise users who produce edits that add a lot to articles, but come in lower amounts. Finally, we have the sixty day rule, so I don't think the addition of a new system is really necessary. JBanton (Talk | Contribs) 12:57, June 17, 2013 (UTC)
 * Unnecessarily bureaucratic. Jeff (talk|stalk) 14:59, June 17, 2013 (UTC)
 * So let me get this straight, you want to demote Staff members that are inactive for a month? What about users who have a reason for being inactive? Is Messi going to be demoted because of his medical reasons? Is Jeff going to be demoted because he in in West Virginia? Am I going to be demoted because I can't edit all the time because I'm on vacation? Seems to me that you didn't quite think this out wholly. There is a rule on the GTA Wiki:Staff page for users who are inactive for no given reasons. Mr. T., That&#39;s Me! (talk) 15:25, June 17, 2013 (UTC)
 * Tony is right. Next year I will be in the eighth grade. In my country, we have to learn very, very, very much for the Romanian and Maths exams, which are very difficult. I won't be active all day during this period, but I'll try to check the wiki at least once a day. Being a staff member doesn't means you have to produce many edits, but to keep the wiki off vandals and check issues. Dodo8 Talk
 * I really agree with this idea, it was one of the most brilliant ideas I ever saw, so, there's a lot of "newbies" who been keeping a hard work in the edits and they have not the chance to become a standard (so sorry). And if one of the staff member did not his part in a month, he should be "expelled". In my part I think things have been done good, the 1000 edits in March and I really excuse my absence in the months of April and May in cause of someones death in my family. Today no one of the staff's member is going inactive so that's good. So sorry about the newbies but I agree with your idea and I think your idea needs to be applied. Like Dodo I'm too in the eight grade and I need to learn a lot but, I always try to help the Wikia meanwhile these days.. --Thomas0802 (talk-Edits) 17:59, June 17, 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe those who are extremely inactive (not editing for more than a few months; not responding to messages) should be considered for demotion, but "strike" thingy would be too difficult to accomplish. Dodo8 Talk
 * Users such as Bob.cutlass2, Haruhi, and GTANiKo are prime examples of long inactive users. The "strikes" effect is problematic and unprofessional, it's like playing baseball. Each users' contributions should be checked, should the users go inactive without any reasons. Mr. T., That&#39;s Me! (talk) 18:34, June 17, 2013 (UTC)