New Wikia Editor

Yescheck Resolved.

What do you think about activating this, I prefer it and have already activated it on the other two wiki's I run and I really like it, anyway I thought I'd ask for your opinion so leave a vote and a comment below. Tom Talk 23:10, July 6, 2011 (UTC)



Since we are in favour of it, I went ahead and activated it. Dan the Man 1983 04:22, July 7, 2011 (UTC)

Request for demotion: Chimpso (Administrator)

Closed as successful on July 8 2011 - McJeff (talk this way)/(stalk this way) 20:54, July 8, 2011 (UTC)

User:Chimpso (Contribs) (Logs)

This user is one of the many administrators who abandoned this wiki to go post on the other GTA Wiki. Despite this, he somehow retained his sysop rights, and continues to occasionally use the tools to promote the other GTA Wiki. Therefore, I feel he should be relieved of the tools, and am submitting this to a community vote. McJeff (talk this way)/(stalk this way) 06:55, June 27, 2011 (UTC)



I have done nothing wrong. Nothing to violate the rules of this wiki or Wikia. There is no reason to demote an experienced, long time admin of this site for no reason. My "adevertising" never degraded this wiki in any way, shape or form. I simply pointed out the obvious change in the skin and in every case I clearly said that the choice to move or stay was entirely up to the user and we were not forcing anything on anyone. I find it disrespectful and a breach of Wikia's rules and policy that you (WikisEditor and McJeff) have deleted former staff members pages, which you even done without a logical reason. When did I use my tools to degrade this wiki? My "promotion" was a bid to help confused users who came back to a whole different wiki. It was placed in my blog space. Not in the main space, not in talk pages, in my blog, where I should be allowed (especially as an experienced admin) to post what I feel (within bounds of course).

I know that you may believe that I am being a burden to this wiki. But I have not made any disruptive edits to this wiki, and I don't know why everyone is accusing me of being the bad person here. I'm just doing what I feel is in the intrest of the users. This is not about me, this is not about winning, this is not about having the most users. It is about what is best for the users. If you feel that I am being degratory or am making things worse for the users of both sites, please tell me. I will be happy to explain myself. Chimpso (Talk) 10:10, June 27, 2011 (UTC)

  • Honestly I'm not bothered either way, he hasn't really done much other than that blog. The blog however was an obvious attempt to make this wiki look bad, and I don't think anyone who has seen that blog can disagree with that, another thing which annoyed me was how you claimed to check in on this wiki which you never did which is why it was in such a mess and why I had to spent so long getting rid of fan fiction, vandalism etc. You don't need admin rights as you don't edit this wiki anymore but I don't see any harm in you keeping admin rights. Tom Talk 10:27, June 27, 2011 (UTC)
An attempt to make the wiki look bad? Once again, I was simply stating the obvious. A large amount of ads and an untidy skin vs few ads and a stable skin. If that makes your wiki look bad then that is no ones fault but your own, and you can't blame me for this. As for checking in, we DID. Spaceeinstien was even looking after the wiki for a short amount of time, reverting vandalism. However, remember that we planned on moving, not forking, not splitting in two, but moving. Wikia's choice to keep this wiki running caused us to have split priorities. And, while our site was still getting set up, you can't honestly think we would devote a huge amount of time to this wiki, when we were still putting together our own. Like you said, there's no harm in me keeping admin rights. I have not degraded this wiki, and I am still here to answer questions and help out. Remember what I said, it's in the intrest of the users. And I know that you guys are relitivley new to adminship. If you have any questions to ask, I'm still here, I still check in every day or so, you can ask me. Just because I don't edit, doesn't mean I can't remain an admin, editing is not the only thing that admins do. Chimpso (Talk) 10:39, June 27, 2011 (UTC)
Based on what he has said, I see no harm in him keeping admin rights, so I have now changed my mind and oppose desysopping him. Dan the Man 1983 10:49, June 27, 2011 (UTC)
I've changed my mind for basically the same reason as Dan as well as because of what I said earlier, "I don't see any harm in you keeping admin rights". Also Chimpso, 3 of the 5 admins are very experienced, we're all bureaucrats on other wiki's. Tom Talk 10:55, June 27, 2011 (UTC)
Did either of you two actually check his contributions logs? He claims he has "done nothing to violate the rules of this wiki or Wikia", and yet he's deleted pages with the deletion summary "(Load of junk, thanks for pointing it out GTAForums ;), now, go to" and written a blog advertising the other wiki - those are both against the rules of this wiki and Wikia (if they weren't, all those other admins wouldn't have been desysoped and blocked). McJeff (talk this way)/(stalk this way) 00:04, June 28, 2011 (UTC)
  • I understand that McJeff wants to demote Chimpso because he doesn't do too much on this wiki. But like Tom and Dan the Man 1983 said, I don't think it'll hurt anything if he stays an admin. I'm sorry guys, I'm just stuck. Bunnyjoke 16:27, June 27, 2011 (UTC)
That's not at all why I want to demote him - I want to demote him because he is abusing the administrator tools to promote another wiki. McJeff (talk this way)/(stalk this way) 00:04, June 28, 2011 (UTC)
McJeff, I would appreciate if you actually read my previous comments, where I have already explained why I created the blog. Those deletions you are refering to were pointed out to me by a post on GTAForums (titled "Don't trust the GTA Wikia, GTA V page is bullshit"). After seeing the GTA V page on here and seeing how trashed it was (there were users on the forums saying "GTA V will be in .... because the Wiki said so"), I decided to delete it as it was spreading misinformation everywhere, hence the term, "load of junk". The "Go to Grand Theft" part was there because many users said "I don't trust it, but it still has some info" and that was adressed to them (hence the refferal to GTAForums). If users don't trust a wiki, I am happy to offer them an alternative, which I did. I see no harm in that, once again, I do things in the intrest of the users, not for my personal gains. If the only thing you have to support a demotion is a blog that you clearly misunderstood and two deletions that seemed uncalled for, then I personally believe that you have a fairly weak case.
EDIT: And why were on the subject of uncalled for deletions, perhaps you whould like to explain to me why WikisEditor deleted the user pages of all former staff members. I noticed that you deleted Gboyers userpage recently, without providing an edit summary. I (and Gboyers) would appreciate an explanation for both WikisEditor's deletions and your recent one. Chimpso (Talk) 08:00, June 28, 2011 (UTC)


Last night I discovered that Chimpso was desysopped by Sannse, one of the Community Central Staff, personally. He was then resysopped by User:Biggest gta fan ever illegitimately. Biggest gta fan ever has since been desysopped and blocked indefinitely by Community Central. While I respect all 'oppose' votes on Chimpso's deadminnning, I feel this new evidence is damning enough that it warrants reopening the discussion. McJeff (talk this way)/(stalk this way) 19:38, July 6, 2011 (UTC)

Which is why I support having him desysopped. Dan the Man 1983 19:42, July 6, 2011 (UTC)
He still has admin rights, I just checked. I'm fine either way, I don't see it really effecting us in any way since he's inactive. Tom Talk 19:50, July 6, 2011 (UTC)
He only has admin rights cause a friend of his resysopped him. Dan the Man 1983 20:04, July 6, 2011 (UTC)
I have had a change of heart guys I also think he should be desysopped. --Owen1983 19:41, July 8, 2011 (UTC)


Yescheck Resolved.

I was playing around with this on one of my Wikis and I was wondering what you guys thought of it. I guess it's not like that Chat Roulette crap, I guess all you can do is write to each other. It would make it eaiser and faster then writting on a talk page. Let me know what you think and be sure to vote. Bunny J. (Talk) 19:57, July 4, 2011 (UTC)



  • I have chat on the L.A. Noire Wiki and its good. Tom Talk 20:02, July 4, 2011 (UTC)
  • I am all for it if it means we can interact with each other its what the communities about --Owen1983 22:01, July 4, 2011 (UTC)
  • I put the chat as active now, it can easily be turned on and off using Wikia Labs. Dan the Man 1983 13:10, July 5, 2011 (UTC)

General discussion: Swearing

Yescheck Resolved. GTAWiki is not censored

The GTA Wiki:Rules page states that we are not allowed to swear anywhere outside of quoting characters who swear verbatim in articles. The rule state that partly because some users will be underage swearing is forbidden on GTA Wiki. I find two issues with the logic. First, I knew perfectly well what the F-word meant when I was as young as 9 and used it fluently by the age of 12, like most any boy who went to public school, so it appears to be 'protecting' people from something they don't need protecting from. Secondly, since the full profanity appears in the articles, it's not like they're 'protected' anyway.

I don't like this rule and I think it is childish. "Cussing people out" is already banned under the civility/personal interactions rules, so the rule isn't required to prevent that. And as I've said various places, I think it's the intent rather than the words used that we should react to - I'd hand out the same block for "ignorant milquetoast" that I would for "stupid m-f-er". So really all this rule does is irritate people who, while generally respectful of social norms, feel dropping the occasional f-bomb to make a point is acceptable.

Before I try making a vote topic though I'm just posting this for discussion, to see what the general community thinks and if there's interest in lowering or getting rid of the language rule, or if most people here are happy with profanity forbidden outside of encyclopedic articles. McJeff (talk this way)/(stalk this way) 05:46, July 2, 2011 (UTC)

I agree partly, for one reason that GTA is not meant to be played by people under 12 in the first place. If they didn't play the game it is unlikely for them to view this wiki, let alone visit a vulgar page. GTA Wiki is supposed to be a "mature only" site not meant for juniors. If they play GTA, they brought it to themselves. And if they learn the f-word early as a child, the vulgarities in the game and this wiki will influence or encourage them to use the f-word, possibly blurring the line between right and wrong. So, as long as a child plays GTA and is in this wiki, we should set a good example for them (if there are any child users), and not influence them to use the f-word on other websites and in public and real-life. I don't really object in your view, but stating how children, no matter what, should not be faced with vulgarities on websites at such early age GTANiKoTalk 05:57, July 2, 2011 (UTC)
I don't see the harm in swearing, any word, if used in a certain context, can be just as bad as using a swear word. If someone's played GTA then they must be accustomed to swearing. If the words are used in GTA games then I don't see the harm in using them on the GTA Wiki. As long as they're not used to insult other users then I don't have a problem with swearing. Tom Talk 11:57, July 2, 2011 (UTC)
Proanity is something I never have a problem with. What annoys me more is those who try to censor it. Jeff will remember, we had an issue on BW a few years back, when a user, Paul HK try censor the word "SHIT" in an article because it was profanity. His reason being that children may read the wiki. It's a childish rule, but we do have to draw the line.
As stated above, dropping the F-bomb to make your point is acceptable in all cases. Especially if the other person refuses to listen. That is when I have a tendecy to drop an F-bomb. However on the other hand it can be bad too, especially when you use it to insult people.
For example, me and Jeff could be arguing over content, where we do not disagree, and he has made his point. I could reply to him by saying "Dude, you're fucking wrong". See that is not bad, because I made a point by telling him I think he is wrong. However, if I was to reply "Dude, you're a fucking arsehole", then that is bad, because I made no point and just plain insulted him. I'd be fine with the former, but draw the line at the latter. Dan the Man 1983 12:34, July 2, 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Dan, but what a few people wrote on the GTA 5 Wishlist page is just plain mean! We don't have to have our users insulted! I think you guys are right, it all depends on the context. There is a difference between, "Oh, man, my computer is shit," and, "You're shit." As long that it's in the rules that you "Cannot swear in an insulting manner," then, I'm fine if people swear. I actually do it alot in real life. ;) Bunny J. (Talk) 16:38, July 2, 2011 (UTC)

here is my 2 cents first GTA is not meant for minors so kids should not be here the bottom line is were grown ups so I think this rule should be relaxed --Owen1983 17:33, July 3, 2011 (UTC)

@Owen1983 Oh, snap! Well, I guess you told me! :) Bunny J. (Talk) 18:07, July 3, 2011 (UTC)

I guess it it just depends on who you are. I wouldn't swear on here, wether it's allowed or not. It just doesn't make you sound very intelligent. However, if other people want to do it, I guess It's okay. Like I said, "As long that it's in the rules that you 'Cannot swear in an insulting manner,' then, I'm fine if people swear." Bunny J. (Talk) 01:52, July 6, 2011 (UTC)

Excessive profanity and "abusive language" is covered in our civility policy. I don't believe calling someone a 'stupid fucker' is any worse than calling them an 'ignorant milquetoast' - if the words are intended to offend and upset it doesn't matter how crass or fancy they are, and if they're not intended to, what's the problem? Also, in my 3+ years on Wikia I've actually never seen a person who had to be blocked due to foul language, so I'm not worried about the wiki getting covered up in f-bomb droppings if the rule is relaxed. Yes, someone who says 'fuck' five times a sentence is probably trying to offend someone, and would get blocked and ordered to stop at the risk of more longer blocks. McJeff (talk this way)/(stalk this way) 03:48, July 6, 2011 (UTC)

Requests for promotion: Dan the Man 1983, The Tom & McJeff

Yescheck Resolved. Dan, Jeff and Tom are now Bureaucrats

This wiki is in need of some Bureaucrats to keep this wiki running smoothly, as you may be aware the former Bureaucrats abandoned this site in October. We are planning on making a request to Wikia for Dan the Man 1983, The Tom and McJeff to be granted Bureaucrat rights. We are already Admins on this wiki and are all very experienced Bureaucrats, Dan is a Bureaucrat on Bully Wiki, Bully Fanon Wiki and Wikia Answers, Tom is a Bureaucrat on Mafia Wiki and L.A. Noire Wiki, and Jeff is a Bureaucrat on Bully Wiki. Before we send a request to Wikia we would like to make sure that we have the communities backing so please leave your vote and, if you wish, a comment below.



  • The only problem is that I'm not too thrilled about McJeff because... well, he's not exactly the sweetest apple on the tree. Know what I mean? He's a good editer but it looks like he likes to get revenge like he did with Gtacrzy rubbing it in his face that he deleted all of his pictures. Look, I'm not trying to be mean, I'm just being honest. I hope you can respect that, McJeff. I decided to vote yes because he is a good editer.

Tom, Dan, I have no problem with you guys, I say go for it. The worst they can do is say no. You are both fantastic admins and you've always helped me out! Bunny J. (Talk) 18:41, July 1, 2011 (UTC)

  • It's definitely a yes, since all of you have a lot of experience and responsibility, and since the wiki is in need of a few. I doubt no one will object GTANiKoTalk 02:37, July 2, 2011 (UTC)
  • your both good editors but if the ball was in my court I would suggest Tom or Dan as bureaucrats my reason is Tom runs mafia and LA Noire and Dan has Bully wiki and another thing I was I was an admin on Mafia wiki and IMV Tom was a very good bureaucrat so he would be my first choice Dan my second McJeff he is a good editor but i read about him deleting images from the wiki after another user did something if you are reading this Mcjeff I am nit attacking you I have no reason to personally I think your a great admin but before you can get bureaucrat rights you have to prove your responsible and wont do anything silly --Owen1983 19:17, July 3, 2011 (UTC)
    • Deleting images is not silly. Many if not most users on Wikia either ignore, misunderstand, or attempt to refute or deny copyright laws. In the case of the user whose images I deleted, he lied and claimed he had taken all those images himself when he really just stole them from various places on the internet. Ever since badges got introduced on Wikia there's been a tendency for editors to think that uploading lots and lots of images is automatically a good thing. I don't allow them to do so and so editors hate me. It's like people getting angry at the police for giving them speeding tickets - it's not the police's fault you were going 18 miles per hour over the speed limit in a 30 mph speed zone, it's yours, but good luck getting them to admit they were the ones that are wrong, instead they complain about the "pigs" and "corruption". McJeff (talk this way)/(stalk this way) 19:36, July 3, 2011 (UTC)
  • @Owen, we are all requesting to become Bureaucrats, thanks for the kind words though :). Tom Talk 19:25, July 3, 2011 (UTC)
  • Also McJeff deleted those images because they were copied and I had told the user that he could upload images of vehicles if he took the images himself, which he didn't, so McJeff removed them. Tom Talk 19:29, July 3, 2011 (UTC)
Owen, Jeff has been editing with me on Bully Wiki for a few years now. In most of that time he has been both an Admin and a Bureaucrat, and even if I do not agree with some of the things he does, which I always take up with him in discussion, he has never been irresponsible. He has never blocked anyone that did not deserve it, he has never demoted a user from adminship or rollbacker that did not deserve it. Dan the Man 1983 00:48, July 4, 2011 (UTC)
  • @ McJeff Yes, but what a police officer says is, "I'm afraid I'm going to have to write you up a ticket," not, "Yeah, there's your ticket! How do you like that?! Bam! That's right I wrote you up for all 100 of 'em!" However, Dan is right, he has never been irresponsible. That's why I changed my vote. He is also a really good editer. Bunny J. (Talk) 16:31, July 4, 2011 (UTC)
@ Bunny, considering McJeff had just found out that that user had created two sockpuppets in order to annoy a user as well as using one of those accounts to vandalise userpages I can fully understand why Jeff may not have spoken to him in the most respectful way. Tom Talk 10:13, July 5, 2011 (UTC)
  • Seeing as this wiki has no bureaucrats as of now, we sure could use some help from these three. Among the current admins, they are among the most respected and could help this wiki improve. Haruhi Suzumiya 06:06, July 5, 2011 (UTC)
  • @Tom I know, he's just not too friendly. He only really talks to me if he wants something. It's not that I don't like him or anything, I'd just rather it being you two. Look, I already voted "Yes," so I'm just gonna drop it. Bunny J. (Talk) 19:10, July 5, 2011 (UTC)
I'm closing this now as voting has run for a week. Dan the Man 1983 18:44, July 7, 2011 (UT