­
1,401 Pages

Closed November 6, 2015 as Successful. Vaultboy is inducted into the Hall of Fame. Boomer8 (talk) 05:49, November 7, 2015 (UTC)

BUREAUCRAT ONLY VOTE. Community may leave comment.

LS11sVaultBoy -- Nominated for Induction into Hall of Fame 

I am nominating Vaultboy for induction into the GTA Myths Wiki:Hall of Fame. Vaultboy is a senior editor here on GTA Myths Wiki and has been actively involved in the wiki since he joined in 2012. He has served as Admin for over 2 years and has mediated countless issues; from conflicts with users to the validity of a myths' existence. Through his significant contributions to the wiki over the years, the wiki has grown and been well managed. For these reasons I support inducting Vaultboy.

Votes

Comments

  • Great user who deserves the honor.--Sasquatch101 (talk) 05:07, November 6, 2015 (UTC)
  • Cool with it. AwesomeBoy (contact) 10:10, November 6, 2015 (UTC)
  • Vaultboy is a good user whom has done a lot for this wiki; so I believe he deserves recognition in the Hall of Fame. Boomer8 (talk) 05:49, November 7, 2015 (UTC)

Closed October 2,  2015 as Unsuccessful.--MythHunter 007 02:43, October 2, 2015 (UTC)

Patroller Probation Policy

Some wikis like GTA Wiki have a patroller probation policy. It is a policy that applies to certain users applying for Patroller positions. If the user is inexperienced or if they have only been active for two months, they will face the probation during which they will be observed. This also applies to previously demoted staff re-applying. After the probation period, a vote will be set up. The vote will take place on the Community Noticeboard page and voting will be limited to bureaucrats and administrators, equaling seven voters. Vote YES for the policy with a certain no. of months for the probation period or vote NO to discard this policy proposal.--MythHunter 007 02:55, September 25, 2015 (UTC)

VotesEdit

Comments

  • I don't have much problem with this rule. But the probation period should not be of more than 2 months.- Myth(Talk/Stalk) 06:09, September 25, 2015 (UTC)
  • We don't need another layer of bureaucracy on the wiki as it will only confuse and discourage editors. GTA Wiki is wrong to have that policy, and it makes them look like armatures. The single community vote works fine and allows users who earn the position to move on with other things. This, in my opinion, is very unnecessary. --Sasquatch101 (talk) 06:36, September 25, 2015 (UTC)
  • This is a stupid and bureaucratic policy that is not needed on this wiki. Boomer8 (talk) 20:50, September 29, 2015 (UTC)
  • Actually I feel Boomer and Sasquatch are right. Myth(Talk/Stalk) 18:57, October 1, 2015 (UTC)

Closed September 17, 2015 as Successful. UOTM rules will be changed. Boomer8 (talk) 03:02, September 18, 2015 (UTC)

User of the Month Rules

Obviously the User of the Month has been pretty dead lately. I don't know if it because of the rules, or that users aren't just that into it. So to spice things up, I was thinking that perhaps the UOTM rules should be tailored a bit. Instead of only bureaucrats allowed to nominate users, maybe admins should be allowed as well. Boomer8 (talk) 19:45, September 15, 2015 (UTC)

Votes

 09:27, September 16, 2015 (UTC)

Comments

  • Well I'd say this is a unanimous yesBoomer8 (talk) 02:57, September 18, 2015 (UTC)

Update on Staff Limits

The July 18, 2015 staff limit proposal which has been approved has been revised.

It was stated: The wiki currently has 5 Admins with a RfP about to go through which would make it 6 Admins in total

This statement is incorrect as at the time there were only four (4) Admins with the latest RfP due to go through which would make it five (5) Admins in total.

A clause was inserted stating "five preferred" thus the intent to limit staff was directed at limiting it to 5 Admins not 6.

In summation, the staff limits set forth are:

Admins - 5 positions at one time. Patrollers - 6 positions at one time.

--Sasquatch101 (talk) 04:14, July 22, 2015 (UTC)

Closed July 19, 2015 as Successful. Page will be deleted. AwesomeBoy (contact) 04:58, July 19, 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of dragon's page 

Guys, I have been wondering for sometime. Should we delete this page? I mean, lots of pages are being created and there are seperate pages for myths of all GTAs. Should delete this one? AwesomeBoy (contact) 11:42, June 21, 2015 (UTC)

Votes

Comments 

  • This wiki has seperate pages for all myths in the GTA series, so we should really delete it, since it's just a copy of all the myths created. I know Dragon has put a lot of hard work creating that page so it's really been difficult for me to decide, but we should do what is right to keep this wiki organized. - Matthew103 (talk) 12:12, June 21, 2015 (UTC)
  • Agree with Matthew.Myth(Leave your threats here/Want to Stalk?) 12:53, June 21, 2015 (UTC)

Closed July 18, 2015 as Successful. Staff limits will be imposed.--Sasquatch101 (talk) 04:24, July 19, 2015 (UTC)

Limits On Staff Positions 

NOTE: ONLY ADMINISTRATORS AND BUREAUCRATS CAN PARTICIPATE IN THE VOTE AS OTHER USERS HAVE VESTED INTEREST AND WOULD NOT BE CAPABLE OF BEING IMPARTIAL. ALL OTHER USERS ARE ALLOWED TO LEAVE COMMENT.

Awesomeboy as well as other have expressed concern over the fact there seems to be no limits on the number of staff positions available on the wiki. The wiki currently has 5 Admins with a RfP about to go through which would make it 6 Admins in total. Below are the proposed limits on staff:


  • Administrators --- six (6), five (5) preferred.
  • Patrollers --- six (6)

Votes 

Comments 

  • Yeaiyeah! At last we can have limits. I was about to say on the thread that this wiki's members were going nuts for hiring more guys as admins, which would oversize the wiki's security. AwesomeBoy (contact) 08:47, July 18, 2015 (UTC)
  • Eveyone should have the right to vote, as it is a crucial decision. You guys are acting like dictators.--Ali Rocky (talk) 09:04, July 18, 2015 (UTC)
  • Ghaching! Myth Hunter, you're paying me 1000 for being wrong. I'll tell you why on FB. AwesomeBoy(contact) 09:47, July 18, 2015 (UTC)
  • If other users would be allowed to vote i would vote NO.And i agree with you Ali. --MH007 / Send it by clicking here 10:47, July 18, 2015 (UTC)'
  • For me, both AwesomeBoy and Ali are correct, they just have a different outlook, that's all. But If I'm going to vote, I would say 'yes'. I agree with AwesomeBoy, because if there are no limitations in the number of Admins, there would be no patrollers, of course everyone would like to become an Admin, instead of a patroller, right? About Ali's perspective, I don't agree with the fact that users would leave the wiki if there are limitations. Why? Because I know that some users here don't care about becoming a staff member at all, in fact, they just want to have fun editing here. - Matthew103 (talk) 11:04, July 18, 2015 (UTC)
  • I think it is better 5 admins and 6 patrollers. LS11sVaultBoy (Talk) 11:51, July 18, 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree with Matthew. 6 admins and 6 patrollers are enough. And to be honest there are not too many non staff users here that can become an effective patroller. And this rule CAN be ammended according to the needs and activity of the wiki. And after a span of sometime one of the admins may also get inactive or demoted in which case new users will be promoted to admin. However, I think this request should be open to all active users that were not blocked in past three months and have more than 200 edits. We cant have everything only according to staff. We should at least allow the patroller(that is Ali) to vote on it.Myth(Leave your threats here/Want to Stalk?) 16:28, July 18, 2015 (UTC)
  • Its not really necessary for a wiki of this size to have a lot of admins. I think five or six admins sounds like a good number to me. Boomer8 (talk) 19:01, July 18, 2015 (UTC)
  • @Mythhunter, Having non Admins/Bureaucrats vote would not represent a fair vote as those users have a "vested interest" meaning they have personal motives (wanting to be promoted) and are not looking out or the best interests of the wiki. Either way it looks like the staff have reached a consensus. --Sasquatch101(talk) 04:21, July 19, 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to block Awesomeboy due to being under age of 13

Bureaucrat only vote settled June 6, 2015. Awesomeboy will not be banned. Boomer8 (talk) 06:26, June 26, 2015 (UTC)

Wikia's policy states that users under the age of 13 are prohibited from editing the wiki. There have long been rumors and allegations that Awesomeboy is under the age of 13. Vaultboy has conducted his own investigation into the backstory of Awesomeboy and has documented all of the instances in which Awesomeboys' age is called into question. I ask the community to review what Vaultboy has documented and discuss whether or not you believe Awesomeboy is under age. After a thorough discussion by all members of the community an Bureaucrat-only vote will commence. This will ensure the policy Wikia has set forth will be carried out regardless of personal feelings for Awesomeboy by other users of the community. Please discuss in the comments section. Evidence is here.

Bureaucrat-only Vote 

Comments

  • From the fact that the evidence points mainly towards him being 12, I would vote that he is underage.LS11sVaultBoy (Talk) 21:11, June 22, 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't think he is 12. He thought he was 12 untill 3 june when his parents told him he was 13 actually and I can beleive it since I have seen this happening to some of thee people i know in my personal life. And he says he lost his birth certificate and in fact never seen it. That is believable too. I have also never seen my birth certificate. So, In my opinion awesome is 13.Myth(Leave your threats here/Want to Stalk?) 23:40, June 22, 2015 (UTC)
  • A lot of this evidence is circumstantial, I need to think about it. Boomer8 (talk) 00:44, June 24, 2015 (UTC)
  • Like I stated, the evidence against him is too circumstantial for me to ban him. I'm not going to lose a great user on this wiki due to personal issues MH007 has with him, and the possibility that he may be under aged. Since there has to be a unanimous yes to ban Awesomeboy, this bureaucrat only vote is closed and Awesomeboy will not be banned. Boomer8 (talk) 05:54, June 24, 2015 (UTC)

Myth Hunting Group 

Request closed June 6, 2015 as successful.

Hey members. I have proposed the idea of a new myth hunting group. It will be developed for those users, who are more interested in myth hunting. The community investigation page has failed to achieve its target. The myth hunting group will contain ranks on the basis of the users finds. As each users findings are mentioned on each users page, there will be no obstacle in counting them. This will overcome mythical challenges in the gaming universe of GTA, in a more exciting manner. Users with proven myth, will gain maximum points and high ranking and a small find regarding a myth will get also get points but less comparing to proven myths. But this group will not have any staff powers. Those who are part of the group, their finds will always be highlighted.

I know its hard guys, but this will encourage myth hunters to join this wiki. We will then have the first myth hunting staff ever. Myth hunters should be encouraged and given ranks, this is the sole purpose of my request. Vote Yesfor this myth hunting group and No to discard it.

Votes

Comments

  • I think it is a good idea to encourage users for myth hunting. By the way the above paragraph had good grammar. And no mistake in spacing. Myth(Leave your threats here/Want to Stalk?) 17:30, June 18, 2015 (UTC)
  • Any decision I make will cause an argument so I'm staying neutral in this one. LS11sVaultBoy (Talk) 17:46, June 18, 2015 (UTC)
  • Made up my mind. LS11sVaultBoy (Talk) 13:35, June 21, 2015 (UTC)
  • It sounds confusing and I don't think it would work. There's a lot of gimmicks we had on this wiki and just didn't take on. Boomer8 (talk) 19:22, June 18, 2015 (UTC)
  • WOAH! ARE YOU KIDDING ME! I'm so gonna win this thing. I told MH before, I found a lot of things last year which I didn't post on MW that would cover up a single year's finding! Totally agreed. And Vault bro, no offense and all, but I never saw you myth hunting. So, I would agree that you saying neutral is the best thing for you. AwesomeBoy (contact) 03:02, June 19, 2015 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I prefer taking images as evidence of already discovered myths than finding them myself.LS11sVaultBoy (Talk) 07:42, June 19, 2015 (UTC)
    • That seems kinda easy, now doesn't it? Hehe. AwesomeBoy (contact) 00:35, June 20, 2015 (UTC)
  • Good idea! Let's try it and give it a shot! Let's hope that it will come out great! - Matthew103 (talk) 09:56, June 19, 2015 (UTC)
  • Its time myth hunters should be highlighted and honoured with seperate ranks.--Ali Rocky (talk) 10:43, June 19, 2015 (UTC)
  • Great Idea Rocky Balboa - SuperMythHunter
  • I have no clue how something like this could be implemented. We are all myth hunters here, so this idea seems pretty pointless and it's only going to cause a lot of disputes and overall disrupt the wiki. We could rehab the Community Investigations page and try and add some of Ali's ideas but overall I don't think this will work. --Sasquatch101 (talk) 21:33, June 19, 2015 (UTC)
    • Sasquatch, we should give it a try. I'm sure you saw that when new users like SPM, MMI and Gtamyths came, they most firstly ask who is the best myth hunter in our wiki, I still remember it. So, if any new user comes, they can see our ranks and then will know who is the best. AwesomeBoy(contact) 00:35, June 20, 2015 (UTC)
    • I Agree with you Sasquatch. MH007

Should the Wiki have Achievement Points again? 

Hello everyone. I am proposing that the GTA Myths Wiki should have Achievement Points reactivated. In the past the system had to be shut down because it was being abused and users kept breaking the rule known as Pointsgaming. In the end it brought a lot of criticism toward the staff that enforced the pointsgaming rule and culminated in the banning of a few users. However, now I think the GTA Myths Wiki has a great community of current staff and new users that are mature enough to handle Achievement Points. So you can for Yes for bringing back Achivement Points, or vote No if you don't want them.

Votes


Comments 

  • Even if the staff effectively enforce the Pointsgaming rule, it will still be impossible to completely eradicate pointsgaming. Myth(Talk/Stalk) 07:39, April 12, 2015 (UTC)
  • We need badges to let the users compete for ranks and this way they'll be interested to edit on the wiki.AwesomeBoy (contact) 14:54, April 13, 2015 (UTC)
  • I am voting on MythHunter 007's behalf per his request on FB. AwesomeBoy (contact) 06:49, April 15, 2015 (UTC)
  • Achievement points don't bring anything but trouble. Last time we had them, articles were being cheapened by pointsgaming and no shit Sherlock info being added. And plus, I don't think they give a fair representation of the best ranking users on the wiki. I highly suggest you change your vote to no before this is closed. --Boomer8 (talk) 19:08, April 26, 2015 (UTC)

Request closed March 29, 2015 as Unsuccessful.

GTA Liberty Wiki affiliation request

Hello,fellow myth hunters i am MythHunter 007. As i talked to Awesome Boy to put a affiliation request he advised me to do it by myself,so here i am for the request of the affiliation of liberty wiki.GTA Liberty Wiki is a great source to know the things,featers that are in GTA games based in Liberty City.After affiliation we would both gain new users and viewers and there would be less confusion as to where to find both of our wikis.Thanks for your time.--MythHunter 007 (talk) 08:27, March 26, 2015 (UTC)

Votes-


Comments-


  • Hope you guys'll say yes - AwesomeBoy (contact) 14:18, March 27, 2015 (UTC)
  • Closing request as Unsuccessful due to tie vote. --Sasquatch101 (talk) 06:16, March 30, 2015 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.