User talk:McJeff

I hate switching between two or more userpages to follow a conversation. 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. Remember to post in the conversation, not at the bottom of the page, and please indent your posts properly.   I am a Bureaucrat on this wiki.

Ask me if you have any problems or suggestions, or if you spot anything bad

Out of town until 10/2. My availability will be sporadic.

Request for promotion
Do you really think i care about notifications i can look at this page where you can get admins, mods etc.--Wcrolas990 11:50, September 19, 2011 (UTC)

Beta
i know lots of things about beta, i can help whit that if you would like to

Daniel sugden
Jeff, someone called "Danny sugden" making many wrong edits, I corrected them, but he still doing that -- Ilan xd 18:00, September 19, 2011 (UTC)


 * I've left him a note about it. Jeff (talk this way)/(stalk this way) 20:12, September 19, 2011 (UTC)


 * There was alot of in-correct info in the article, trust me, I'm an expert about GTA IV era.
 * Don't worry about Wcrolas, it's seems that Lithuania is not the safest place in the world, but "Jewish must die"? I will delete the quote. :) -- Ilan xd 03:47, September 20, 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sending messages to you or Dan only in the Bully wiki because I don't want someone else will read it. It's something that only b'carts, admins or patrollers should know:) By the way, what about GTANiko and Harushi? -- Ilan xd 11:22, September 20, 2011 (UTC)

Re: Advice request
I'm happy to offer my advice. If you find the problem is only with one single page, then you may find temporarily protecting that page cools things down. Blocking someone tends to wind them up, and that often does more harm than good. This user has never edited a talk page or a user talk page, so may not be familiar with wiki etiquette or how to find or respond to talk page comments, so you can't guarantee that he's deliberately ignored your warnings. Protecting the page means the protection reason will show up if he tries to edit it again, leaving no doubt. You could also add a into the page - if he deliberately ignores or removes that, you can be 100% sure he's ignoring you. That said, he's only 12 and most of his edits don't really make sense - he's put more effort into his own user page than anything else. I'd give the protection a try for a few days, give him a very clear indisputable final warning, as in: "If you make one more false, incorrect or spam edit, you will be blocked for at least a year." That way you've been seen to do everything possible to help, you've been open and honest, you have proof that he's subverted you've given him a chance, and the block would completely be in the interests of the wiki. Whereas if you block him now, just after a warning (which he's not responded to, might not have seen), for editing pages (with disputed facts) that's a bit tenuous and he'd have a right to be upset. Gboyers talk 06:07, September 21, 2011 (UTC)


 * I know you didn't ask my advice on the case of the large signature, but he's reduced it and removed the word "die" which is what you wanted. Now, it's the same size as Tom's, and it's also the same size as yours or mine, since we use superscript letters which pushes line spacing up by the same amount as his slightly-larger text. Unless you're going to invent a new rule blocking them too, I'd suggest that he's done what needed to be done, and there's no reason to keep him blocked. Gboyers talk 10:38, September 21, 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll undo the indef-block, but he's still blocked for a week for his "jews must die" comment (week starting as of the time he made the comment). Jeff (talk|stalk) 10:42, September 21, 2011 (UTC)

Jeff, Daniel was also blocked in the "Saint's Row wiki" for similer reasons like useless edits. -- Ilan xd 11:01, September 21, 2011 (UTC)


 * The anti-Semitism qualifies for a block against the rule "No discrimination or abuse towards members or other people" (which I wrote), and also breaches GTA Wiki:Civility from: "personal attacks", "insulting other users", "disrespectful comments". It's up to you whether you start blocking users for things unrelated to their conduct on the wiki. Do you want to open that can of worms? If so, then you have to treat everyone the same. If someone was racist or abusive on another site or another part of wikia, would you block them here? If someone was racist as a joke, or used the N- word in a friendly way? Would you just do it for jews or races or include things like homophobia, sexism, age discrimination etc etc? Don't forget that you are expected to Assume Good Faith without Wikilawyering. I know what I'd do, but this is not my wiki any more. Gboyers talk 12:47, September 21, 2011 (UTC)


 * I do not block for off-wiki behavior except under extremely specific circumstances, and general misbehavior is not one of them. Jeff (talk|stalk) 17:06, September 21, 2011 (UTC)


 * My main question was whether you'd block for general behaviour on-wiki that isn't disruptive/vandalistic/spamming or directly abusive to another user. Anyway - I'd suggest it was probably Daniel Wcrolas who just made the account User:Poopyjews101 and possibly other accounts, to circumvent his block and vent his frustration. That sockpuppetry is another specific rule broken. Gboyers talk 17:36, September 21, 2011 (UTC)


 * Daniel hasn't been blocked yet. Wcrolas is blocked.  I'm going to request a checkuser to find out who's behind it and indef-block the Poopiejews account. Jeff (talk|stalk) 17:54, September 21, 2011 (UTC)


 * I can guess from that username and his conversation about Jews in the past few days that Wcrolas made it, but let's see what the checkuser result says. Dan the Man 1983 18:05, September 21, 2011 (UTC)


 * I was going to say, Wcrolas and his anti-semitic attitude has been heavily discussed lately, anyone up for trolling could see it and try to use it. I'm going to request a checkuser against Wcrolas, and against 4thHale and his sock-farm. Jeff (talk|stalk) 18:07, September 21, 2011 (UTC)


 * Checkuser request sent, there's nothing left to do/say until it comes back. Jeff (talk|stalk) 18:21, September 21, 2011 (UTC)


 * I think he is that vandal; look at his name - Poopiejews!          By the way I'v created this and this -- Ilan xd 18:47, September 21, 2011 (UTC)


 * The checkuser came back - negative on both - but it's the same checkuser (Timothy Quievyrn) who bungled the 4th Hale/Mizu101 hacking situation. I'm considering asking Angela if she'll grant me Checkuser rights for this wiki anyway, since I know it's been granted to active users in the past. Jeff (talk|stalk) 22:26, September 21, 2011 (UTC)


 * I requested that a week ago and was refused, because they only grant that to users in wikis that suffer a lot of vandalism from sockpuppetry. Dan the Man 1983 23:54, September 21, 2011 (UTC)


 * We do. of course a lot of it is from Gtacrzy.  When I last requested a checkuser on him, I spoke with Uberfuzzy, who told me he was using eastern European proxy addresses (mostly Sweden) and so Checkuser wouldn't be useful.  Jeff (talk|stalk) 02:54, September 22, 2011 (UTC)


 * I never said we didn't. Their words, not mine. Dan the Man 1983 03:50, September 22, 2011 (UTC)


 * Ya I know dude, I was just sayin'. Jeff (talk|stalk) 03:52, September 22, 2011 (UTC)

You only semi-protected the page, which only stops new (non-autoconfirmed) users, why didn't you fully protect it? The edit war continued and now he's blocked. Gboyers talk 17:06, September 23, 2011 (UTC)

Rewriting policies
Since this is a different wiki, I think we need a disucssion on a few policies as most here are copied from BW. For example the deletionism policy needs to be discussed. Infact most of the policies could do with a revamp and be written in a friendlier way. Dan the Man 1983 04:06, September 22, 2011 (UTC)


 * We wrote those policies harshly in the first place to prevent wikilawyering. Because we both had to deal with the shit on Wikipedia where one edit would be a complete nuisance and ass, and the admins would be like "yeah he's unpleasant but since you're better editors it's your responsibility to compensate for him". I'm not saying we shouldn't rewrite anything (I rewrote the blocking policy significantly, for example), but in general I prefer to have harshly worded policies that can be under-enforced as opposed to weakly worded policies that can be exploited by wikilawyer types. Anyway if you've got a policy you think we should rewrite we can discuss that policy on its talk page.


 * I'll just say right now, I'm sure one of the policies a lot of people are going to want gone is the Competency policy. And I'm dead set against taking it down. We've never used it here on GTA Wiki to date, and on Bully Wiki maybe 4 times total in 2 years. It's like, remember 99.7.44.130? Who despite both of our best efforts to help him couldn't write an edit that didn't need to be immediately reverted? Or GLV, who adamantly refused to discuss anything and that's why we had to block him? I think we need the Competency policy as a fallback for those exceptional circumstances, and the records should show that even if it's harshly worded it has never been abused. Jeff (talk|stalk) 04:29, September 22, 2011 (UTC)


 * I am not saying have weakly worded policies, I am just sayin make them seem a bit friendlier as harshly written policies make us sound like we have something stuck up our arse. Remember the key to editing a wiki is enjoying it. Anyone reading the policies here will think "how the fuck can we enjoy editing here, when it seems this wiki is ran by Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin"


 * We agreed to be more lenient with users, so why not make the policies here more friendlier and less authorative. Dan the Man 1983 04:42, September 22, 2011 (UTC)


 * So basically your reason to keep it is because 99.7% of the wiki are competent? Would not that not be a good figure to actually delete it? Dan the Man 1983 14:20, September 22, 2011 (UTC)


 * I think along with BW, we are the only wiki that enforces "Competence is required" as an actual rule. It is not even a rule on Wikipedia, but an essay. Dan the Man 1983 04:47, September 22, 2011 (UTC)


 * It's not a "rule" on Wikipedia, but they've installed blocks based on incompetent editing - it just usually takes them five ANI threads, three Requests for Comment and an Arbcom case before they get enough "consensus" for doing it. And I certainly don't want to import the "essay" concept. Jeff (talk|stalk) 05:18, September 22, 2011 (UTC)


 * Well it's a ruling on here I want rid of. Users who read probably feel like they're walking on eggshells editing here. Dan the Man 1983 13:57, September 22, 2011 (UTC)


 * So then what's your plan to deal with the 99.7's of the wiki editing world here on GTA Wiki if you suddenly hate the policy you've been fine with for a year and a half? Jeff (talk|stalk) 14:15, September 22, 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually be helpful to them, you should try it one day. Dan the Man 1983 14:16, September 22, 2011 (UTC)


 * Isn't that figure actually a good reason to delete it? Dan the Man 1983 14:21, September 22, 2011 (UTC)


 * Dan, are you forgetting again? We tried and tried and tried to help 99.7, remember? He ended up blocked because after literally months of coaching he still couldn't make an edit that didn't have to be reverted on sight. I linked his contributions earlier in this discussion. And what figure is actually a good reason to delete it? Jeff (talk|stalk) 14:36, September 22, 2011 (UTC)


 * No Jeff, I have not forgotten, and not every case is going to be like 99.7. 99.7 was ignorant, and I feel he liked playing dumb just to annoy. But I a big difference between here and BW, for example 99.7 is an IP, IPs do not edit here and as you know most incompetent edits come from IPs. 0 is the figure I am on about, no cases what so ever of us having to use it here, which proves editors are competent and as you know that hardly any editor reads the policies on a wiki. We can do without the ruling, and just help users and fix their errors, rather have them abide by a rule that makes them feel they're walking on eggshells everytime they edit. Dan the Man 1983 16:18, September 22, 2011 (UTC)

Another reason is quite plainly, I am fed up of being a little Hitler haha! Dan the Man 1983 16:21, September 22, 2011 (UTC)

Jeff! Daniel sugden started again. -- Ilan xd 15:51, September 23, 2011 (UTC)

Dont worrry about it! No need to be sorry. I was just borad when i did it LOL :)