GTA Wiki:Requests for Promotion

Welcome to GTA Wiki:Requests for Promotion.

You may apply for Rollback Rights or Administrator privileges on this noticeboard. To do so, you must meet the prerequisites, and then state what position you are looking for and why you think you need the rollback and/or administrator tools.

Requests for Checkuser, Oversight and Revision Delete must be done at Community Central (and they will probably be declined).

Rollback is a tool that allows users to quickly revert vandalism.

Administrators have the power to block and ban users, protect pages, move images, and delete pages and images, in addition to rollback.

To qualify for rollback rights, editors must have been active for two months with no rules violations. Rollbackers must receive a 60% 'yes' percentage to be promoted. Users who apply within three months of joining will face a three month probationary period. At the end of the three months a review will be made by Bureaucrats and Administrators to determine whether or not the user will retain their rights.

To qualify for administrator rights, editors must have been active patrollers for four months with no rule violations. Administrators must receive a 70% 'yes' percentage to be promoted. Those applying for adminship will likely be asked questions on how they deal with certain situations. This is to see if a user has the capabilities of being an administrator.

Editors with rollback and administrator experience on other wikis are encouraged to apply, and based on the editor in question exceptions may be made to the length of time editing required for promotion.

When applying for promotion, a community vote will take place. Voting lasts 7 days, although it may be allowed to run shorter (in the case of an obvious pass/fail) or longer (in the case of a very close vote) at bureaucrat discretion. Only bureaucrats should close votes.

Application users who are caught tampering with other users votes, such as changing a no to a yes, will have their request closed immediately.

Please submit your requests at the top of the "Active requests" page subsection.

Requests where the voting has finished can be found at

• GTA Wiki:Requests for Promotion/Archived Requests 2011-12
• GTA Wiki:Requests for Promotion/Archived Requests 2013
• GTA Wiki:Requests for Promotion/Jan 2014 Administrator Election
• GTA Wiki:Requests for Promotion/Archived Requests 2014
• GTA Wiki:Requests for Promotion/Archived Requests 2014-15

Active requests

Sasquatch101 - Patroller

Hello everyone I'm Sasquatch101 and am applying for Patroller. As Jeff noted, the wiki staff has seen a lot of turnover recently and that is expected to continue with the current patrollers most likely graduating up to the 2 admin spots leaving 4 patroller positions open. I have previous experience on this wiki as patroller and am the bureaucrat over on the GTA Myths Wiki (this wikis' affiliate). I have been contributing to GTA Wiki for over 2 years and love the GTA series. I hope you all consider my request for patroller. Thank you. --Sasquatch101 (talk) 22:25, January 23, 2015 (UTC)

Votes

• Neutral - Leo68 (talk) 22:26, January 23, 2015 (UTC)
• Unsure - (talk) 22:37, January 23, 2015 (UTC)
• Yes (with conditions) - (talk) 23:03, January 23, 2015 (UTC)
• No - DLVIIIL Talk 23:43, January 23, 2015 (UTC)
• Neutral (for the moment) - Rain - Talk 23:48, January 23, 2015 (UTC)
• No - Jeff (talk·stalk)
• Neutral - SJWalker (talk) 00:01, January 24, 2015 (UTC)
• Yes (with conditions) - Carl Johnson Jr. (talk) 02:15, January 24, 2015 (UTC)
• Yes (with conditions) - () 04:02, January 24, 2015 (UTC)Smashbro8
• Yes-Hunter(Talk/Stalk) 05:11, January 24, 2015 (UTC)
• Yes - Boomer8 (talk) 06:15, January 24, 2015 (UTC)

Comments

• You were demoted but that was a while ago. Can't decide yes or no. Leo68 (talk) 22:26, January 23, 2015 (UTC)
• I'm still not sure, i think it is a little too early, if you try in a few weeks or a month, i'm sure it will be successful. (talk) 22:42, January 23, 2015 (UTC)
• That was for Admin and a lot of people said they would feel comfortable with me as a patroller first. --Sasquatch101 (talk) 22:40, January 23, 2015 (UTC)
• Now I've been thinking about that, i'm not completely supporting your promotion though, there are some conditions, such as being more mature, respectful and not forgetting about The Tom, he will still visit the wiki and he will see whether you are promoted or not, i'm giving you a yes vote, but listen to us first. (talk) 23:03, January 23, 2015 (UTC)
• Way, waaaaaaaay too soon. Especialy when you were applying yourself to be an admin not one week ago. As I said in my previous comment: start by being a more polite and active USER before being a polite and active patroller, I'm sorry Sasquatch, but after everything that happened, you coming back here and immediately becoming part of the staff makes me feel that you did not learn your lesson. As I said to Monkeypolice, theres no need to hurry to become a patroller, this gap in your staff will not ruin the wikia in any way. So give it a rest. DLVIIIL Talk 23:43, January 23, 2015 (UTC)
• I believe you deserve a second chance after all. However I still need to decide. I will change my vote later once I decided. Rain - Talk 23:48, January 23, 2015 (UTC)
• First, I've never really had any worries that Sasquatch was untrustworthy or had anything other than the best intentions for the wiki. I have two concerns that keep me from saying 'yes' however. The first is the temper issue that's been an issue since day one. The second is that I don't think Sasquatch and Boomer8 are capable of being neutral/impartial in any incident that involves the other - and if you don't see why that's a bad thing, look at the situation that lead to Sasquatch getting blocked and Boomer flouncing. Dan/Messi and I may be friends, but we've called each other to task any number of times and in the long run it's better for both of our editing. Jeff (talk·stalk) 23:51, January 23, 2015 (UTC)
  • On reflection, changing to 'no'. Really, I'm astonished to see as many 'yes' votes as I do. Jeff (talk·stalk) 05:44, January 24, 2015 (UTC)
• I am away at the moment so don't have time to give this the fully considered response I think it deserves. Obviously my comments in the admin request would show a tendency toward a negative vote but if the request is still open in 48 hours I will hopefully have a non knee-jerk response to put forward. smurfy ^(coms) 23:57, January 23, 2015 (UTC)
• Undecided. Everyone deserves second chances but they must be earnt. I have no doubts over whether you are trustworthy or not as I believe that you are, but I have yet to see an apology for the incident that got you demoted in the first place. Tom's resignation does not automatically repair burnt bridges. One of the ways to regain the trust of others is to admit where you went wrong, and your seeming willingness to "gloss over" the incident makes it appear to me that you have not yet learnt. I'm not voting no, and am willing to change my mind, but you need to regain the trust previously shown in you before your demotion before you are considered for staff responsibilites. SJWalker (talk) 00:01, January 24, 2015 (UTC)
• Probationary patroller? Give him three months see if he's changed his ways. Leo68 (talk) 01:59, January 24, 2015 (UTC)
• I will vote yes, but you need to make sure to uphold the qualities that make a patroller. Remember to stay active, which is something a lot of former staff didn't get. Carl Johnson Jr. (talk) 02:15, January 24, 2015 (UTC)
• He can be a good patroller in my opinion.Hunter(Talk/Stalk) 05:11, January 24, 2015 (UTC)
• Sasquatch is a very trustworthy and respectable user, not to mention how long he's been on this wiki. I know he has experience, as I've seen him serve as a bureaucrat over on the GTA Myths Wiki. I personally believe he has the qualifications for admin here, so my vote is a yes. @Jeff - The situation you are using for an example is argumentative. The reason why I resigned ("flounced" as you call it; I have no clue what thesaurus you were reading to get that old English word.) is because I thought the punishment Sasquatch was given was unacceptable and unjust. It's not because I am in some creepy pact with him. Boomer8 (talk) 06:15, January 24, 2015 (UTC)

McJeff (Bureaucrat)

Since we've had such a big turnover in the Wiki staff recently, we've got a crew of mostly new administrators and we're out a bureaucrat. I served as a bureaucrat for 3 years, 2011-2014. If the community is willing to have me, I'll step back up as a bureaucrat until one of our new administrators is qualified to be a b'crat. Jeff (talk·stalk) 20:56, January 23, 2015 (UTC)

Votes

• Yes- Messi1983 (talk) 20:57, January 23, 2015 (UTC)
• Yes - Rain - Talk 20:58, January 23, 2015 (UTC)
• Yes - (talk) 21:01, January 23, 2015 (UTC)
• Yes - DocVinewood (talk) 21:09, January 23, 2015 (UTC)
• Yes - () 21:14, January 23, 2015 (UTC) Smashbro8
• Hell Yes - Leo68 (talk) 21:24, January 23, 2015 (UTC)
• Yes --Sasquatch101 (talk) 21:52, January 23, 2015 (UTC)
• Yes - (talk) 22:34, January 23, 2015 (UTC)
• Yes - smurfy ^(coms) 23:07, January 23, 2015 (UTC)
• Yes - DLVIIIL Talk 23:43, January 23, 2015 (UTC)
• Yes - SJWalker (talk) 00:01, January 24, 2015 (UTC)
• Yes - Carl Johnson Jr. (talk) 02:15, January 24, 2015 (UTC)
• Yes-Hunter(Talk/Stalk) 05:56, January 24, 2015 (UTC)
• No - --Boomer8 (talk) 06:24, January 24, 2015 (UTC)

Comments

• Some time ago, I used to say that Jeff was "the guy who only says no" but now I understand why, even though he is not a big fan of the GTA Series, he is very good as a bureaucrat, let's be honest. (talk) 21:01, January 23, 2015 (UTC)
• Would be great to have you back as a bureaucrat Jeff. Messi1983 (talk) 21:02, January 23, 2015 (UTC)
• No question. He stood down meaning there's no reason why he can't have it back. Leo68 (talk) 21:24, January 23, 2015 (UTC)
• Jeff was always a great b'crat so it's a yes for me. --Sasquatch101 (talk) 21:52, January 23, 2015 (UTC)
• A no-brainer really. As mentioned on user talk, as far as I'm concerned, no election required for this decision, but rules are rules. Really happy you are willing to fill in until we get some experience in the middle ranks. smurfy ^(coms) 23:07, January 23, 2015 (UTC)
• Since its just temporary and you have a lot of experience in this field, I guess theres no problem in going to regular user to bureaucrat in just one voting. DLVIIIL Talk 23:43, January 23, 2015 (UTC)
• A yes from me. Jeff's previous experience and willingness to step in to help the new staff settle in will be extremely beneficial to us all. SJWalker (talk) 00:01, January 24, 2015 (UTC)
• Jeff is professional, mature, and has the experience. Carl Johnson Jr. (talk) 02:15, January 24, 2015 (UTC)
• No reason to say no. He will be a very good Bureaucrat. I agree with all the comments above.Hunter(Talk/Stalk) 05:56, January 24, 2015 (UTC)
• Just because there is an empty bureaucrat position doesn't mean it needs to be filled up right away. I think we should wait when an admin is qualified for the job, instead of another resignation. Besides, I believe Jeff is a bit of a control freak when he is granted absolute power. Boomer8 (talk) 06:24, January 24, 2015 (UTC)

Inactive requests

Group Demotion

Demotion/Inactivity discussion taking place for 5 inactive staff on the main community noticeboard.

AK-28-Patroller

11:54, January 22, 2015 (UTC) as Unsuccessful - Messi1983
Since the major changes in the wiki's staff, I decided to apply for the patroller position...
Hey everyone, my name is AK-28, (formerly:Kingrhem) a former staff member.... I used to be a patroller here until an incident (Which I prefer not to mention) happened and I got demoted. I was very active and I'm still active, in fact - I'm almost always here at the wiki even when I'm not editing. I'm always looking out for vandalism and I know much about the GTA series (It's in my blood). Also, I'm known to make friendly terms with everyone and help everyone. My civility records are certainly and I add * if I had to use words such a swear words. I've helped in the creation of many pages and to report uncivil users and vandals. I've got total of 3920 edits on this wiki 2232 of them is on editing articles (I don't think the number of edits matter).

Sincerely -AK-28 (Talk ⋆ Edits) on 11:05, January 21, 2015 (UTC)

Votes

• Neutral No - DocVinewood (talk) 11:19, January 21, 2015 (UTC)
• No- Hunter(Talk/Stalk) 11:36, January 21, 2015 (UTC)
• Neutral leaning towards Oppose - Rain - Talk 11:48, January 21, 2015 (UTC)
• No - (talk) 11:55, January 21, 2015 (UTC)
• Neutral - DLVIIIL Talk 12:00, January 21, 2015 (UTC)
• Neutral - SJWalker (talk) 12:25, January 21, 2015 (UTC)
• No - Messi1983 (talk) 12:45, January 21, 2015 (UTC)
• No - Leo68 (talk) 15:28, January 21, 2015 (UTC)
• No - (talk) 15:32, January 21, 2015 (UTC)
• No - smurfy ^(coms) 21:08, January 21, 2015 (UTC)
• NO WAY --Sasquatch101 (talk) 22:12, January 21, 2015 (UTC)
• NO!!!! - Boomer8 (talk) 00:23, January 22, 2015 (UTC)
• No (never) - Jeff (talk·stalk)

Comments

• I'd like to know about that incident that got you demoted before voting. DocVinewood (talk) 11:19, January 21, 2015 (UTC)

  I changed my vote to "No". A staff member doesn't behave like you did, and 5 months is not a "long time ago" for me. Sorry, but actions have consequences. DocVinewood (talk) 14:20, January 21, 2015 (UTC)

• Well it happened about five months ago on the GTA Myths Wiki, a user called RageQuit and I got accused for "conspiring" against that wiki's main bureaucrat, but that long time ago and it's all over now. AK-28 (Talk ⋆ Edits) 11:38, January 21, 2015 (UTC)
• Full details of the "incident" can be found here. I know most of the details of the story, and the only reason why I'm not voting "No" is because Rhem was very helpful to the Wiki. However, this GTA Myths Wiki story (that I can call "power abuse") is still somehow worrying, no matter if "it's all over now" or not. I might reconsider my vote in the future. Rain - Talk 11:48, January 21, 2015 (UTC)
• Actually I was going to vote neutral. But then I remembered you said "Lets ruin the wiki" about GTA myths wiki.. I know it is a five month old incident. But I cant so much trust on you right now. Sorry.Hunter(Talk/Stalk) 11:43, January 21, 2015 (UTC)
• Rhem, I know that the past is the past and it was a long time ago, but it can't be erased, forgiving other people is different than trusting them again, which I think it's wrong, I don't mean to ban you from the GTA Wiki but to not give you rights, if you don't mind me saying something like that, sorry. (talk) 11:55, January 21, 2015 (UTC)
• Can we stop with this "It happened a long time ago, let's just forget about it" excuse, please? Time does not heal things by itself, you have to prove that you will not cause any trouble again. I don't operate by the logic that "Everybody DESERVES a second chance", for me, people EARN a second chance. Now, you said that you have been still active here on GTA wikia for the past months, with is the only reason that I'm giving a neutral vote, depending of what other people have to say, I maybe, just maybe, change to a yes. But until then, it's a neutral. - DLVIIIL Talk 12:00, January 21, 2015 (UTC)
• This "I'd prefer not to talk about the incident as it happened a long time ago" attitude is not the right one. Like 558050 said, second chances are earnt. I won't deny that you are a good editor and you have been an active member but being a staff member requires a lot of trust being placed in you, and if you have previously been demoted then that is going to colour some people's opinions, especially since you've previously conspired to "ruin" a Wiki. I'm not voting no because I think you are a good editor, but you need to regain the trust previously shown in you before the incident before I change my mind. SJWalker (talk) 12:25, January 21, 2015 (UTC)
• Is there any proper way one can gain back somebody's trust? AK-28 (Talk ⋆ Edits) 12:33, January 21, 2015 (UTC)

It takes time to regain someone's trust, just continue to be a active and civil user, and wait a little more to apply yourself to be part of the staff again. You are still welcome to edit here on GTA wiki, (if you were not you would still be blocked) so use that to improve your reputation. DLVIIIL Talk 13:06, January 21, 2015 (UTC)

• Once trust has gone, it is very hard to regain it. Messi1983 (talk) 12:46, January 21, 2015 (UTC)
• For any one who wasn't here when Rhem was demoted; AK-28 was implicated in a plot to overthrow a bureaucrat on the GTA Myths wiki and to shut down the wiki itself, along with RageQuit in August. Jeff set up the demotion and he eventually stood down to avoid demtion. Too soon to re-apply. No from me. Leo68 (talk) 15:28, January 21, 2015 (UTC)
• Like Doc says, i would like to know about this 'incident', i think the reason you got demoted it important to mention, especially since many users may not know you. The reason i vote know is because this incident sounds un-repairable, by the way users (and yourself) are making it out, if it is so unmentionable, i think its fair to say it is bad, sorry. (talk) 15:33, January 21, 2015 (UTC)
• Sorry Rhem, same reason I opposed Sasquatch101, bridges burnt are not automatically rebuilt when your percieved main opponents leave. It is great that you want to return and contribute but I think it will take a bit longer to regain enough trust to be considered to be reinstated to a staff role. smurfy ^(coms) 21:10, January 21, 2015 (UTC)
• I can't believe you are actually applying to be a staff member here when you were a breath away from being demoted, blocked and banned. You specifically targeted me and other staff on the GTA Myths Wiki. You organized an offsite hate group where you slurred Jews, Blacks and rigged community voting on the wiki. You should have been banned across Wikia for what you did. I guess you are still conspiring on Steam with Gunshow on how to ruin another wiki. Pathetic. --Sasquatch101 (talk) 22:12, January 21, 2015 (UTC)
• You make me laugh. You want to protect this wiki from vandals? YOU'RE A VANDAL! A quote from you - "Lets ruin the wiki" is a perfect example of a vandal. Your radical thinking and anti-semanticist values are nothing short of disgraceful. You should be just lucky that you weren't banned from this wiki for what you and your racist group did. Boomer8 (talk) 00:23, January 22, 2015 (UTC)
  • Really? -AK-28 (Talk ⋆ Edits) 10:37, January 22, 2015 (UTC)
  • Actually, You can be blocked across wikia for showing racism and harressing users.Hunter(Talk/Stalk) 11:51, January 22, 2015 (UTC)
  • Really? Was I showing any racism againt anyone? -AK-28 (Talk ⋆ Edits) 12:22, January 22, 2015 (UTC)
  • I believe,The whole group was doing it. LSVaultBoy said, you, The Average Anarchist and Gunshow was part of the hate group. I did not have any definite proof to support that you showed racism though. But you were still incivil . Hunter(Talk/Stalk) 12:42, January 22, 2015 (UTC)
  • Well Gunshow was the only one with the racist stuff, but unlike what Sasquatch said there was nothing about black people. AK-28 (Talk ⋆ Edits) 13:20, January 22, 2015 (UTC)
• Closing this as unsuccessful. Messi1983 (talk) 11:54, January 22, 2015 (UTC)
• AMy position on AK-28 getting promoted on this wiki is "absolutely never." Then again, my position was and remains that he should have been banned entirely. Jeff (talk·stalk) 00:26, January 23, 2015 (UTC)