GTA Wiki talk:Staff

Please use this page to discuss the staff list and user access levels in general. To discuss becoming staff, see GTA Wiki:Requests for Promotion

Patroller limit
We have seven patrollers on this wiki, could be eight pending on Sasquatch101's request. Isn't it about time we put a limit on how many patrollers we have here? I personally think we need a new admin rather then a new patroller. Messi1983 (talk) 05:50, February 5, 2013 (UTC)


 * I wasn't just thinking the same, I was about to propose putting you me and Tom working with a couple of the better patrollers to get them ready to be an admin. I was also thinking that if anyone gets the urge to step down as a b-crat, I think Ilan's very close to ready to step up, if not ready already. Though I don't think GTAWiki should ever have more than 3 b-crats at a time. Jeff (talk|stalk) 06:23, February 5, 2013 (UTC)


 * We need a new admin or two because in a couple of months time, GTA V will come out and then this place will be like rush hour on the London Underground (chaos and very very busy). If we ever needed a new B'crat, then yes, Ilan would be my first choice to be promoted. Him or Winter Moon. Messi1983 (talk) 23:09, February 5, 2013 (UTC)


 * Some one needs to step up from the Patroller ranks. I'd go with M.K. or myself. For me, we'll have to wait until or after March because that is when I'll be active when my computer arrives.
 * Mr. T. (talk) 00:29, February 28, 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I never commented on this matter. But with more and more requests coming in, we should definitely decide. Also I do agree with the Ilan thing, but he has established himself as something of a senior Admin already. Tom Talk 19:57, March 13, 2013 (UTC)


 * With three bureaucrats, four admins, and eight patrollers, and most of them active, I believe we do not need anymore new staff members. Only promotions that should happen is if one of our existing patrollers request adminship or if Ilan requests Bureaucratship. Messi1983 (talk) 09:48, March 24, 2013 (UTC)

Inactive bureaucrats
While checking the users list, I noticed that User:Thai420 and User:GuildKnight are still flagged as bureaucrats. Thai420 hasn't been around for years, GuildKnight hasn't edited for years (she logged in in October 2012) and she's among the crew that went over to Grand Theft Wiki although she's inactive over there. Should we not worry about it or should we hold a request for demotion? Jeff (talk|stalk) 21:26, February 5, 2013 (UTC)


 * Nothing to worry about if they're both been inactive for ages. Messi1983 (talk) 23:04, February 5, 2013 (UTC)

On the page
Can one of the admins put the staffs colors on the page so new users know what they mean.

Example:

Beuracrats = Baby Blue

Admins = Blue

Patrollers = Yellow

You admins should consider it. Boomer8 (talk) 02:38, April 3, 2013 (UTC)


 * I think that would be useless, the names are already colored. Take a look. Dodo8 Talk

Singapore flag
It won't work with the Flagicon template because it isn't a .svg.

Instead, the code is  

22:42, July 11, 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks Rain. Sam Talk 22:46, July 11, 2015 (UTC)

MarcusCheeKJ 's name is misspelled
Hey I just wanted to say something, the new Patroller, MarcusCheeKJ has his name misspelled as 'MarcusCheekKJ' in the Patroller section of the page. I can't edit this page because I'm not a staff member, so can somebody please change it? Andy Ashley (talk) 00:40, July 15, 2015 (UTC)

I meant the image for the user in the page. Andy Ashley (talk) 00:41, July 15, 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing out Andy, i'll report that to an admin. EagleIcon.png AndreEagle17  PS3 Triangle.png PS3 Cross.png PS3 Circle.png 00:50, July 15, 2015 (UTC)
 * Woah, I did not notice this... Thanks Andy, Andre & 558 for correcting this. :) M C  ( My Co mp ut er ) 06:56, July 15, 2015 (UTC)

Oops, I just noticed that WildBrick had the same problem as me, as his avatar link is "Wildbrick142". Can an admin or b'crat change this please? M C ( My Co mp ut er ) 12:34, July 16, 2015 (UTC)

That Ferrari Guy 's profile pic does not link to his page when you click on it
Hey. I noticed that the profile pic for That Ferrari Guy does not link to his page like all the other profile pics for the other staff members. Can somebody change it? Or, maybe unlock this page so I can fix it? Andy A. (Talk | Contributions) 14:14, September 27, 2015 (UTC)


 * I'll do it now. LS11sVaultBoy (Talk) 14:29, September 27, 2015 (UTC)

India flag
Hey guys. I noticed that the India flag does not link to a Wikipedia page like all of the other flags. Can somebody fix it? Andy A. (Talk | Contributions) 15:45, October 3, 2015 (UTC)

Hello? Is anyone going to fix it? Andy A. (Talk | Contributions) 18:28, October 3, 2015 (UTC)


 * That's because it isn't a flag icon, it is just a .png image. The svg image messed up and the whole thing was corrupt. LS11sVaultBoy (Talk) 21:28, October 3, 2015 (UTC)

New Patroller
Sorry if it seemed chaotic, feel free to fix it. Took me a couple of minutes to add my specialties and new avatar as a result of me being a new Patroller:


 * No. You simply cannot have all these. They are too specific and lengthy. Look at other examples. Monk Talk 05:55, July 26, 2016 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see. Yeah, I figured as such. JohnSignature.jpg 07:21, July 26, 2016 (UTC)

Demotion and repromotion
I have to bring it to your attention that you have a flaw stated in this section and I will explain why it is a flaw.

'Administrators and bureaucrats who go inactive are demoted to Patroller by policy - no community vote required' - That's all very good with one small problem. How are you going to demote a bureaucrat to patroller for inactivity when none of you have the ability to do this? The only people who can demote a bureaucrat are the bureaucrat themselves and Wikia Staff and Wikia Staff do not demote bureaucrats for inactivity unless there is community consensus and inactivity for at least a year. Messi1983 (talk) 06:29, October 1, 2016 (UTC)


 * The idea when I wrote that was that if we had a policy for demoting bureaucrats and followed it as it was written, we might not have had to jump through all the hoops Wikia Staff made us when we wanted to demote bureaucrats, like what happened to the guys who originally founded Bully Wiki and Bully Fanon Wiki. Jeff (talk·stalk) 22:10, October 10, 2016 (UTC)


 * Of course, there are actually two inactive bureaucrats who were bureaucrats from before the community split - User:GuildKnight (part of the Grand Theft Wiki crew who was inactive during the community split) and User:Thai420 (who originally founded the place). Seems to me I proposed demoting them and the community voted not to. Jeff (talk·stalk) 22:11, October 10, 2016 (UTC)


 * Oop. Seems someone doesn't really know how it now works - Wikia/Fandom Staff do demote Bureaucrats under community consensus - we had Smashbro8 demoted for inactivity - although he did ask the other bureaucrats to close it as a resignation, which, to me, would likely be the result of all bureaucratic demotions, as Staff at such a level are likely to come to terms with the demotion request and as such either demote themselves or let Wikia Staff realise, indirectly, that they don't need the rights anymore. It seems slacking and I'm aware of that, but in reality demoting bureaucrats should and does not occur often. Monk Talk 22:27, October 10, 2016 (UTC)


 * Jeff - The users who founded Bully Wiki and Bully Fanon Wiki were inactive for more than a year before they were demoted. Also if you remember correctly, Wikia staff asked us on Bully Fanon to keep the vote open a little longer despite votes to demote the user. Also you made that point on this wiki when there was a vote to demote me. All I am saying is they should remove 'no community vote required' when a community vote is needed.


 * Monk - that is not the point I am making. The point I am making is you cannot demote a bureaucrat without a community vote. Only the bureaucrat in question or Wikia staff can demote bureaucrats. Wikia staff never demote without community consensus. Messi1983 (talk) 23:14, October 10, 2016 (UTC)


 * I understand your point now. I'll update the page. Thanks. :) Monk Talk 23:24, October 10, 2016 (UTC)


 * No worries. Messi1983 (talk) 23:32, October 10, 2016 (UTC)

Probation
Just for clarification, should the patrollers who failed their probationary period be mentioned in the "Former staff" section or not? 09:03, October 27, 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, they were technically staff, they served as staff, and dropped out from being staff. Perhaps a "Failed probation" tag should replace "demoted" for them. Monk Talk 09:22, October 27, 2016 (UTC)

Patroller Priviliges
How did you guys give your patrollers access to protected articles and to rename them? I want to add that in my wiki, our patrollers need to access locked pages from vandals. User:Big Brother1(Text/Pevert) 19:30, July 4, 2017 (UTC)Big Brother1
 * You're gonna have to contact Wikia and see if they'll accept to make the changes (use Special:Contact on your wiki). 20:34, July 17, 2017 (UTC)

Inactive staff
So, as seen here, a decision was made almost three years ago, which is to actually demote patrollers that are inactive long enough, and to demote inactive admins entirely, not just to patroller position. Has there been afterwards some change that I'm not aware of, or was that decision forgotten? Because the Staff page still says "Administrators who go inactive are demoted to Patroller by policy" and "Patrollers are not demoted for becoming inactive", and this is how things were functioning lately. If it was just overlooked, then we should update the page to reflect that decision, as well as proceed with demoting the two currently inactive patrollers. 23:30, March 10, 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, a distinct lack of follow-through on that one. The page was never updated after the change was agreed. As has been agreed several times in "demotion" discussions, there is still an implied requirement for courtesy reminders to be issued to staff at risk of automatic demotion. I issued one to Ronald a few days ago, which would be unfair to rescind and auto-demote immediately. That courtesy should probably be spelled out in writing in the inactivity demotion section too, rather than just relying on our manners. Smurfy: <font size="1" face="Arial">illuminate - communicate - spectate 00:34, March 11, 2019 (UTC)
 * Eh, I'm not in for that auto-demotion either; reminders are indeed important first. Regarding my last statement, it was just about the fact that Ronald will later have to be demoted if he's still inactive after your reminder, and mainly that 558050 should be stripped of his rights since he was just demoted from admin to patroller. 00:55, March 11, 2019 (UTC)
 * I know I'm answering this over a year after the discussion ended, but whatever. The very quick explanation is that the original 3 bureaucrats - myself, Messi1983 and The Tom - didn't believe in demoting inactive staff, and so when we ran the place we only demoted long-term-inactive administrators, and we only demoted them down to patroller so it felt less like we were kicking them out the door with no thanks for their work.  LSSVaultBoy though was always mad to demote inactive staff, and as soon as he became the most senior bureaucrat, he unilaterally made those changes without discussing it with other staff let alone the community. I think I've mentioned elsewhere that I do not think VaultBoy was a good b-crat, and this is another example of why. Jeff (talk·stalk) 08:08, June 11, 2020 (UTC)

A suggestion for the staff page and "Demoted"
I think there should be a distinction made between users who were demoted for going inactive on the wiki, and those who were demoted for conduct issues like Sasquatch and Crescendospectredragon. There's nothing wrong with going inactive and the former staff who only went inactive shouldn't be tarred with the same brush as the ones who were demoted for doing something wrong.


 * Crescendodragon was demoted for claiming there was nothing for him to do as an administrator.
 * WikisEditor was demoted for plagiarizing GrandTheftWiki.com repeatedly
 * AK28 was demoted for the drama over on GTA Myths Wiki where he allied with a team of vandals to usurp leadership of the wiki and was subsequently deemed too untrustworthy to have a staff position on GTA Wiki.
 * Sasquatch101 was demoted because he refused to quit insulting another editor (Dodo8) after a prolonged dispute that required bureaucrat intervention

Wikia heavily discourages "Walls of Shame", but it wouldn't be a wall of shame to change inactive staff to "Demoted for inactivity" and the ones I mentioned above to "Demoted for cause." This does not include Cloudkit since he wasn't just demoted but fully banned. I don't think we've had any other staff get demoted for reasons besides inactivity since I went inactive. Jeff (talk·stalk) 04:07, 4 August 2021 (UTC)