GTA Myths Wiki

Inactive Requests

Request closed as Successful by Boomer8 (Contact) 02:21, May 11, 2018 (UTC)

Nominations for Protected Wiki Heritage

After careful consideration, below is a list of myths that merit protection under the newly added policy. More myths can always be added but these ones are the flagships of GTA myth hunting.--Sasquatch101 (talk) 22:02, May 7, 2018 (UTC)


This discussion is a Bureaucrat Only Vote. Any user may leave a comment.


  • All of these myths are fine. In my opinion PWH pages need their own existence label though, or just have it flat out removed. I also don't think any other pages should be added until way later however. - Gunshow (T, E) 22:11, May 7, 2018 (UTC)
    • What do mean by needing their own ex label or having it removed? --Sasquatch101 (talk) 22:25, May 7, 2018 (UTC)
      • Go to the infobox and look for the part that says |fourth =. Hold the left mouse button, drag it across, hit backspace, and viola, no more existence label. - Gunshow (T, E)
        • That would be ridiculous to remove already well established existence labels. Besides that would defeat the entire purpose of preserving the page in its current form.--Sasquatch101 (talk) 22:33, May 7, 2018 (UTC)
          • If anything, the page needs an ICONIC existence label or something. In the grand scheme of things this policy is just stupid, as in, it exists as just another way for the Bureaucrats to decide how pages are made based on their own opinion. First they made the new existence label requirement way too high to ever be used properly (75%) in response to a demand to change Goatman's existence label, this policy basically exists because users wanted to change Bigfoot's existence label. If the policy wants to make a special exception for certain articles, then the content should at least be special too. - Gunshow (T, E)
            • How many times do we have to go through this. The existence label policy was implemented at your urging. Then you rushed into the Goatman vote with your previous request having been newly minted. Then you bitch and complain that Goatman would be subjected to the policy you proposed. As far as this new policy goes, I am very happy that this Wiki is taking an active role in protecting some of its most precious articles form over zealous and frankly, negative, pessimistic editors like yourself. --Sasquatch101 (talk) 22:54, May 7, 2018 (UTC)
              • I can't wait until 2020 when even pages like Squidward's Suicide are marked as POSSIBLE to "foster an optimistic image of myths on the wiki" and every single request on the CNB is to be a Bureaucrat only vote. The future looks great! :) - Gunshow (T, E)
  • I fully understand what Sasquatch means. He can't even revert an edit without writing an insulting comment on the editor, probably he wants to prove himself that he is somehow a king editor here or something. Also, he mocked me for doing an editing mistake on Cortez's Source page (that actually isn't even a mistake), but he did a greater mistake himself LMAO and that was the mocking edit trying to prove his editing skills and perfection. - Mantiix (talk) 16:06, May 8, 2018 (UTC)
    • Because I'm totally the one who mispelled Gonzales and regarding, and it wasn't Mant's own fault for spelling "Gozalves" and "regrading". If you want to brag about how great your editing skills are, maybe you should realize that anybody can view the page history. - Gunshow (T, E)
      • It is not even about the mispelling. I say you should avoid writing hate summary on the edits. You may be not correct too. Anyways, in the past you said to me to stop antagonising Andrew, but you do the same, yet you accuse others for hypocrisy and shit logic. - Mantiix (talk) 17:09, May 8, 2018 (UTC)
        • It has nothing to do with the misspelling, which is of course why over half of your comment consisted of lampooning me over a spelling mistake that you were responsible for. 🤔 - Gunshow (T, E)
          • So you're saying that your mistake was my mistake? And you are always saying to I'm not responsible for my actions? Get some self awaraness you lack. You're just a joke - Mantiix (talk) 17:30, May 8, 2018 (UTC)
            • Ah yes, the mistake I caused that was present in Mant's first revision of the article. I guess this is just like the lightning bolt missing from File:Social_club_pic_goatman.png. Somehow, I have the magical ability to change things on the wiki that other people have uploaded themselves. 🤔. I also love the "can't even revert an edit without writing an insulting comment," so this rule either doesn't apply to CNB comments then, or Mantiix has a special excuse for himself like he always does. - Gunshow (T, E)
              • Hey guys whats goin on in this thread - Indep (Wanna map?|Wat I'm doing?) 17:54, May 8, 2018 (UTC)
              • If either of you continue to derail topics and degenerate them into arguments, I will consider placing an Interaction Ban on both of you.
  • I see no reason not to protect these myths as they are he benchmark of myth hunting. Boomer8 (Contact) 02:21, May 11, 2018 (UTC)

Community Announcement

To ensure some of the most iconic myths on the wiki are preserved for future generations of myth hunters a new rule was added to the Policy: Protected Wiki Heritage.--Sasquatch101 (talk) 22:27, May 4, 2018 (UTC)

Closed, new hybrid form (current version) from both editors will be applied - Mantiix (talk) 22:48, May 4, 2018 (UTC)

Edit Dispute: Grove Street Elegy

Looking at the page now, you can see there is an editing dispute going on. Mantiix keeps reverting the changes made to the page without any edit summary given. So I'm posting this request for you to vote on whether we should keep the old revision or institute the new one. Since this is a dispute, I won't vote (due to the conflict of interest involved) and I hope Mant will do the same. - Gunshow (T, E) 16:36, May 2, 2018 (UTC)



  • You cannot just re-write the whole article while removing sixty-percent of its content. You removed analysis, description, and the whole core of the content. That is like re-writing the article in your own opinion, completely unacceptable - Mantiix (talk) 18:23, May 2, 2018 (UTC)
    • I removed that content because it was all false. All of the information you've put in the article isn't even mentioned in any of the sources you attempted to cite.
      • It has been a perceived notion that the Elegy doesn't spawn in Grove Street but over the years, this has been challenged and debated about on various websites including GTA Myths Wiki[1] and GTA Forums[2], - First off, nice job citing yourself on the article, very credible. Secondly, looking at the other source on GTAForums, there is 0 discussion about any Elegy appearing in Grove Street, just around Rodeo and Richman.
      • You cite GTA Wiki, GiantBomb, and Grand Theft Wiki: All three sources explicitly say that the Elegy doesn't spawn in Grove Street either, but you've somehow managed to frame it as if all these sites say it actually does.
      • The way draw distance functions has been subject to glitches and debated several times on the GTA Forums[3] - You've cited a glitch that happens when CJ is flying an airplane in foggy weather as an explanation for a car in clear weather.
    • The reason why so much content had to be removed is because you are being expressly intellectually dishonest, to the point that it can be considered deceit. Quote mining, citing things that the source doesn't actually say, willful ignorance, and so on... at this point the article is just flat out lying to people in it's current form. - Gunshow (T, E)
  • The original virsion by Mantiix seems ok to me. It acknowledged that the glitch isn't universally accepted and it has some critics, but it offers it's own theories on how such a glitch could occur. I think some of Gunshows argument should be included in a revised version. The problem with the new proposed one is that it attempts to discredit the myth right out of the gate and it seems a bit attackish on the Author. The old one is better because it doesn't tell you what to think. It lets rhe reader draw their own conclusions. It could use some work though, just not a complete overhaul.--Sasquatch101 (talk) 11:16, May 4, 2018 (UTC)
    • FYI, the links are go to the same version by Gunshow. I'm basing my vote on the article's history i.e. mantiix's last revision.
  • Both the versions have their own drawbacks. The article needs a major overhaul and should be presented in both(for/against) ways. Moreover, that Giant Bomb info should be removed.--MythHunter 007 Talk 11:46, May 4, 2018 (UTC)
  • I originally didn't want to vote on this thread at all, since it's obvious that the old version will be the one that's selected. Still, the new version highlights the fact that the myth is false, therefor it is superior. Simply because things that are not in the game files cannot appear in the game. This is not GTA V where you can argue that not all the game files have been looked through, this is SA, a game that came out in 2004. To look through cargrp.dat all you need to have is MS Notebook. I'd be very thankful if someone could tell me how a thing not in the game files appeared without using g good 'ole willful ignorance. --Rattlehead (talk) 12:06, May 4, 2018 (UTC)
  • I find it funny how slash voted on the CNB but in his comment he said he doesn't want to vote. Nice neutrality (lmao). Sas was completely right saying that the new version is just simple attack on the author (me). It is just negative version of the article, the article must be neutral to the author and to the critics just like in my version (the old version). Mantiix (talk) 12:21, May 4, 2018 (UTC)
    • Slash did originally did vote, I removed his vote because his account doesn't have 100 edits. And now you're attacking him on that because of "neutrality" as if we shouldn't vote yes or no. And I guess it's my fault and having the integrity to remove an invalid vote even if it benefits me? You know an argument is lost when one side engages in petty semantics like this. - Gunshow (T, E)
      • First of all, how is my argument lost when you resigned from your admin position because you could not handle the heat? You did mistakes recently, but you are too proud of yourself to admit them. Your last edits were also just attacks, all because of your hate and jealousy to staff. You think that your opinions are always right but in reality - not really. Anyways, I just said that my article content is more neutral, that is why it would be better to have it on the wiki. I don't see anything wrong about it. Mantiix (talk) 12:33, May 4, 2018 (UTC)
        • The reason I resigned is behavior like this. The current staff on GMW is just completely immature, and I don't mean it in the "GMW buzzword everyone uses" kind of way. I mean it in the "admitting that critical thinking is bullshit" way (Mant really did this on chat). I mean it in the "I also think that I'm right and you can't do anything about it" kind of way (verbatim quote). And now I mean it in the "adding a cleanup template to my page is a personal attack" kind of way. The staff here at the moment is a joke - their own personal opinions get in the way of facts and if you dare criticize them then you're going to be blocked (see: Mant's multiple attempts to get Andrey, Slash, and myself blocked on the Leprechaun Films wiki.) If you can't handle the most basic of criticism without going into 1984 censorship mode, or "nananana I don't hear you" denialism, then what's even the purpose of being on the wiki in the first place? - Gunshow (T, E)
          • Looks like this guy believes in the elegy glitch. He's also upset you resigned...--Sasquatch101 (talk) 21:11, May 4, 2018 (UTC)
            Elegy believer.gif
          • Sas, WTF, lmao? Mantiix (talk) 21:15, May 4, 2018 (UTC)

Gunshow20 - Resignation

I've removed my Administrator rights. I don't want to write anything long, but I have had doubts about the wiki itself for some time. I can't pinpoint a definitive "straw that broke the camel's back" but the recent behavior of staff - namely nonsense bans based on circumstantial evidence, outright ignoring excerpts directly from the came's code, closing and deleting threads where their ideas are challenged, and using "assume good faith" to shut down any discourse whatsoever - there are 100 things I could've wrote here that apply in the last month alone. There's also the culture of GMW itself, where policies like "All Users are Equal" are lacking, and that just leads to the idea that in any dispute, a user is 100 percent correct because they are an admin or because they hold staff, and as the wiki's biggest skeptic that is something that I don't want to contribute too. In a nutshell, I feel like the staff here is very unprofessional and it wouldn't reflect well on me personally to be continually associated with it. - Gunshow (T, E) 10:26, April 30, 2018 (UTC)

Community Announcement

Recently new Policy proposed by the community, voted on and ratified by the Bureaucrats has now been implemented. Any new requests for amending a myth's existence status must be done so on: GTA Myths Wiki:Existence Status Requests.

Additionally a new policy was added: GTA Myths Wiki:Myth Existence Status.

The most recent myth status request on the CNB has been removed and if desired, needs to be resubmitted at the above mentioned location. Please read carefully the requirements for participation in the Status Request. --Sasquatch101 (talk) 02:52, April 23, 2018 (UTC)


  • I think this policy needs to be re-evaluated, as the requirements are too strict. In fact, I think the policy was deliberately made this way to cover up for the exposed Goatman hoax. Sasquatch has had basically a week to draft this policy page and he conveniently only posts it (and the clause to remove the already existing requests) once the Goatman to False CNB is picking up steam and at 100 percent Yes votes. This policy doesn't do anything to actually improve the wiki in any way, it's just covering up for the bureaucrat's mistake with requests that basically only they can approve of. - Gunshow (T, E)
    • This policy was added at your urging Jim. You submitted a request that specifically asked for a new policy and new page/method on myths existence. The long dormant Goatman fourm post had been revived just in the last 24 hours and YOU run to the CNB to push through a request without consideration to the pending policy changes that YOU had initiated. At some point you need to stop the drama and take responsibility and not take out your frustrations on the bureaucrats. The fact is you are an excellent example why we need a stiffer policy as you are only concerned about what you need and how fast you can get it. You of all people who worships GTA Wiki policy should appreciate the new policy. You just recently got promoted to Admin and ever since this Wiki is back to the old days of crazy drama. If you are so inclined, repost the request on the newly formatted page. If you never made your prior request it would have just occurred on the CNB but that's the way it goes.--Sasquatch101 (talk) 07:58, April 23, 2018 (UTC)
      • The policy was indeed posted at my request, but nowhere in my original request did I add any draconian stipulations like "Staff only" or "75% acceptance rate." It's just too high of a standard to get literally anything accomplished. For example, the last existence label request on here, Trevor Phillip's Ghost (something that is patently false,) wouldn't even succeed as 5 positive votes and 2 negative votes results in 71.5%. The rules weren't established to help the wiki, but rather to cover your tracks on the Goatman hoax (which funnily enough you closed right after my original comment.) A clear conflict of interest is there and you've based the provisions on this policy solely on one single myth that you personally don't want to be marked as false, and that's just unacceptable. Instead of arguing, here's a solution: allow any user (with 100 edits and 1 month on the wiki, just like any other board) privileges to vote, and change the acceptance rate to 66% (or even a flat 50%.) For this case in particular, to add some concessions, we can consider Andrey's and Slash's accounts to be new accounts instead, so that they would have to reach the 100 edit requirement to vote. Sound good? - Gunshow (T, E)
        • I don't see this as draconian at all. The threshold the GTA Wiki imposes is 70% for all votes concerning staff admin and above and 60% for patroller. These percentages were used interchangeably while I edited there on various issues and never once did anyone complain. The GTA Myths Wiki has a very liberal policy that affords many users voting options not found on any other wiki I've been apart of. The issue of a myth's existence is a very serious part of what makes a myth popular and successful. Saying 3 quarters approval is necessary for adopting an updated status is not harsh. The US congress requires two thirds for a new ammendment so our policy isn't oppressive nor bad.--Sasquatch101 (talk) 08:52, April 23, 2018 (UTC)
          • The difference is that we are on GMW, not GTA Wiki. Those percentages don't matter. Your entire argument now just consists "Yeah but what about GTA Wiki" (even calling me a GTA Wiki Policy Worshipper lol) when I never mentioned GTW on the existence label request, only the failed image policy request. It's just an attempt to derail the conversation. And with regards to "The issue of a myth's existence is [...] what makes a myth popular and successful." The wiki is just that - an encyclopedia. We're hosting this site to serve factual information, not to obfuscate certain things because they conflict with someone's personal belief in the myth. That's why more and more pages are using <reference> tags, that's why more and more pages are citing sources or in game files: because this website is about information. If you want to promote a myth to make it more popular or successful, then a blog, a YouTube channel, a whatever, is the place do so. Basing our wiki's content on this idea that we have to please everybody instead of being objective just contributes to the reputation the wiki has of being unreliable. Finally, I just want to point out that I proposed lowering the acceptance rate to 66%, and then you said "The US congress requires two thirds for a new ammendment." Two-thirds is 66 percent, so what's the contrarianism about? - Gunshow (T, E)
            • You are making this about me and my feeling towards the Goatman myth. I'll say again what I've said all along, I don't know if the myth is real or fake but I'm not willing to just settle for either or, that's why we have a Possible anf Unlikely classification. What you want to do is consolidate all myths into on of two categories regardless of whether they are 100% accepted as real or fake. Monk does not work for Dan Houssar nor do you. I listen to all sides of an argument whereas you and Monk believe you've cracked the code and all myth are either real or fake. Most myths can't be fully proven nor disproven. Requiring a clear consensus is not unfair, in faxt it's what fair is. Doing a "bums rush" proposal on on of the most talked about myths in GTA history is totally inappropriate. Let the staff have a clear vote and if 75% say yes it's fake then si be it. The Myths Wiki isn't the GTA Wik, I undetstand that, but there policy is a reference point on how sometimes serious matters must be handled on a case by case basis and not be swayed by newbie users who don't have enough experience. If the request is a no brainer then it should pass easily.--Sasquatch101 (talk) 09:21, April 23, 2018 (UTC)

Closed as Ex Aequo - Indep (Wanna map?|Wat I'm doing?)

2018 Photo Competition Voting Stage 2

Here's the final stage of the 2018 Photographic Competition, so you can vote and decide a winner from the two winners.

Voting rules

  • Same as before, except competitors can't vote at all.



Closed as the competition moves onto the final stage of voting - Gunshow (T, E)

2018 Photographic Competition Voting

Here you can vote on what photo you think is best from the 2018 Photographic Competition. I'm posting this vote at Mantiix's and Andrew's request. - Gunshow (T, E)

Voting Rules

Unlike most CNB requests, the competition has special rules:

  • Voters need to have at least 20 edits and be active on the wiki for at least one month.
  • Voters can only vote once.
  • Competitors cannot vote for themselves.
  • After the results are through, a second vote will commence between the top 2 to determine a final winner.



Request closed as Successful by Boomer8 (Contact) 22:33, April 19, 2018 (UTC)

Policy Change: Existence Labels on CNB

Okay, for my first rollout of proposed policy changes is going to be something simple. It's been an unwritten rule that existence labels on articles should never be changed unilaterally and instead must be discussed on the CNB. I propose a simple solution: add a new policy for it. In the event that the CNB becomes too crowded with requests, we can always create a separate page specifically for existence label changes.

- Gunshow (T, E) 13:39, April 14, 2018 (UTC)


This discussion is a Bureaucrat Only Vote. Any user may leave a comment.


  • I am in agreement that we need a clear rule regarding the process for changing a myths' existence. I am however opposed to creating a whole new page for requests as there is just a handful of myths that have been called into question and had their existence upgraded/downgraded. I feel its a very slippery slope when we start heavily scrutinizing every single myth on the wiki. I am all for transparency and creating proper procedure but the wiki can't afford to have its database of myths purged by over-zealous myth hunters who just want a black and white answer to myths' existence. I'll draft a policy on this if Boomer is in agreement.--Sasquatch101 (talk) 05:55, April 15, 2018 (UTC)

Request closed as Unsuccessful by Boomer8 (Contact) 22:33, April 19, 2018 (UTC)

Policy Change: Image Policy Overhaul

This next policy change suggestion is a bit more complex, but not as overbearing as, for example, the GTA Wiki image policy. Keeping with the current policies already in place, I propose the following additions:

  • Images with logos or watermarks (primarily MyEpsilon or WikiGTA, but sometimes even GMW's own logo) should never be allowed, and in current situations, must be replaced immediately.
  • With regards to the names of files, they should describe succinctly what the photograph shows. I don't want to go to GTA Wiki levels of red tape, but it would be much better for the wiki if images had file names like "Plane in the sky.jpg", "Red County Truck Terminal Interior.jpg", or "Apartment 3C VC.png" instead of "Eweeweewewewhghghghgh.jpg" and "Gta-vc 2016-03-06 04-23-24-838.png".
  • With regards to infoboxes, files should simply be named after the page name itself, with a game identifier if needed, and the map should follow the format of "Page Name Map". I would be willing to let this policy slide should the need arise.

- Gunshow (T, E) 13:39, April 14, 2018 (UTC)


This discussion is a Bureaucrat Only Vote. Any user may leave a comment.


  • It sounds good in theory but in practice would never work. Most users including myself pay no attention to image names and I don't see why an image name is necessary anyway. The logo and watermark issue is the same situation. Ideally, it would be nice to have clean, crisp images but a lot of images on here come from Mod sites, YouTube or other internet sources. Very few images are originals by the author. Also there would be no way to enforce this policy change without meticulously checking every single image uploaded. It would in the long run discourage newbie editors from contributing and be a huge waste of time changing all the image names. The GTA Wiki is A-N-A-L and are known for enacting pointless policies (Probation; WTF?). To be honest, this seems like a big boondoggle to gain thousands of edits. Common sense says stick with what we've got already.--Sasquatch101 (talk) 05:55, April 15, 2018 (UTC)
  • Seems like unnecessary bureaucracy. Boomer8 (Contact) 22:33, April 19, 2018 (UTC)

Request closed as Successful - Gunshow (T, E)

Mermaids - UNLIKELY to FALSE

I think we should use this CNB ability way more often. I've come to a conclusion that we should change this myth's existence label from unlikely to false. This myth is completely out of space, it is completely illogical. It is a MOD, mods can't be labeled as unlikely at all. You know, imagine a mermaid diving in the waters of GTA SA, that would be just too hilarious and it would make no sense. Waters of the 3D game like GTA SA are too transculent, that would mean severe of sightings would have been reported if it was somehow, true. I do not believe creators would waste time to create something like this. We need to wake up and this myth belongs to false category.


Mantiix (talk) 15:43, April 10, 2018 (UTC)



  • Well, I didn't even know that it was UNLIKELY... Good you noticed - Indep (Wanna map?|Wat I'm doing?) 16:04, April 10, 2018 (UTC)
  • Crap article, crap existence label. Let's change it. - Gunshow (T, E)

Request closed as Successful - Indep (Wanna map?|Wat I'm doing?) 11:34, January 21, 2018 (UTC)

Brad Snider's Ghost - FALSE to UNLIKELY

I bet you'd never expect me to want to raise an article's existence label :). Well, I'm not going to exactly write anything large, because unlike Trevor Philips' Ghost, I feel that raising an article's rating by a small margin requires a lower burden of proof. Also, check out my most recent contribution to the page, a 2,000 byte overhaul, to get a picture of the myth's recent developments. That's the main reason why I want the article raised; it has developed quite a lot recently with actual myth hunters choosing to investigate this one rather than clickbait YouTubers (kind of the opposite of TPG, in a way.) - Gunshow (T, E) 17:06, January 14, 2018 (UTC)



  • I personally think that this myth deserves the UNLIKELY status. The myth was interesting from the start of it. Indep (Wanna map?|Wat I'm doing?) 12:11, January 15, 2018 (UTC)
  • I've never read the page before but after reading it, it sounds pretty interesting. I think it definitely deserves Unlikely status. Boomer8 (Contact) 21:35, January 15, 2018 (UTC)

Request closed as Unsuccessful -- Boomer8 (Contact) 23:16, October 31, 2017 (UTC)

Evil Voice Myth (GTA IV) - Existence

So I came here after a long time and was randomly looking at some pages when I stumbled upon this one. I found that the status of this myth is stated to be unlikely. I don't know about the GTA Vice City part, but these voices do exist in GTA IV (I was the one who noticed it in case of GTA IV). The theory of this voice arising from a distorted sound file is not confirmed yet(I never thought about this though) but the existence of the myth is still confirmed in GTA IV even if the cause remains "undiscovered". So, should the rating of the myth be changed to "proven" for the GTA IV part? I was actually going to change it but thought that it would be a better idea if I post a discussion about this first. - Myth(Please leave your threats here/Wanna Stalk?) 01:46, August 31, 2017 (UTC)



  • I am absolutely willing to believe that this myth is real, but until it can be, ahem, proven that these sounds occur 100 percent of the time, or a video/soundbyte showing them off appears on the internet (and can't be debunked,) the myth shouldn't be proven until that point. If that happens (even if you yourself capture that video/sound) then I will change my vote to yes. -Gunshow (T, E)
    • The thing is the sound is more like a random occurance and does not happen 100% of the time(There are chances of it occuring even when the player is just standing). I think I noticed it 2 years ago and I never used to record my gameplay - At that time I only took photographic evidence of stuff that can be seen, but did not record things like sound and video. So in this case where the whole myth is just a sound, I did not record a sound or video clip. But I was probably not the only one, since there was also some other guy in the comments section of that page claiming to have heard those sounds. I was also playing the game last week and heard something like this once again, but it is not actually that common, since I heard it only once in a span of playing the game daily for a week at least(More like 10 days). Myth(Please leave your threats here/Wanna Stalk?) 02:31, August 31, 2017 (UTC)
  • I think we should close this request...--MythHunter 007 Talk 11:20, September 19, 2017 (UTC)

Request closed as Successful - Indep (Wanna map?|Wat I'm doing?) 10:52, August 6, 2017 (UTC)

Trevor Philips' Ghost - UNLIKELY to FALSE

The Trevor Phillips' Ghost page has quickly gone from a long forgotten relic of this wiki from 2014 to becoming the most viewed page on the wiki, having 20,000 weekly views at it's peak and still going strong with 12,000 presently. However, this article still remains in 2014 standards in many ways, including it's rating. After doing some research of my own, I have found some bombshell evidence that makes me believe the article's status should henceforth be changed to FALSE.

The Wiki's 10th policy states that "myths are not to be created by fans just for the fun of it." This page is a clear violation of that policy and is the biggest reason it should be marked as false, and I can back it up. On May 5th, 2014, a Wikia user named XTRA5 uploaded a video game creepypasta onto the Creepypasta Wiki. A week later, he posted about it here and also mentioned a haunted GTA copy, which is clearly an allusion to his previous creepypasta. Five days later, he created the Trevor Phillips' Ghost page on this very wiki. Now if we check his behavior elsewhere, it becomes apparent that XTRA5 really enjoys 2 things; writing fiction, and inserting false information on factual wikis. This fact alone casts a huge shadow of doubt on this myth, as it is a little suspicious that a brand new user, known for hoaxes, suddenly creates a page on a myth never before seen on the internet that features wild unsourced claims. He even went so far to upload this image, which is so amateurish you would mistake it for a troll or some kind of ironic humor. However, this is not the only reason why the page should be marked FALSE.

Another reason for the page to be considered fallacious is a complete lack of evidence. It is common for a myth to lack codes or models within the game, but even in this scenario there are plenty of references and as such it is marked UNLIKELY. Sadly, Trevor's Ghost does not have the same privilege. There is no major evidence, including video or photographic proof, audio, or even videos of strange behavior in the area. Neither is there small evidence. What does Trevor's Ghost have to redeem itself? Simply the fact that Trevor can be killed by the player. That is it - the only evidence of a ghost is that the person is dead. Even though the myth began three years ago (as it started on this wiki, created by the aforementioned user) there has not been a single shred of evidence, even if you were to stretch the truth as hard as you could. A complete and total lack of evidence whatsoever should also be why the page is marked as FALSE.

So there is Trevor's ghost. A page created as fan fiction with the sole intent of fooling players and getting a laugh out of the author, with absolutely no facts to back it up. I know this request is getting long, I certainly could have wrote more, but I must request that all you GMW editors agree with me that this page should be changed to FALSE once and for all.

Gunshow (T, E) 10:46, August 1, 2017 (UTC)

Votes (ends August 6th)


  • The page doesn't deserve to have the UNLIKELY status. Indep (Wanna map?|Wat I'm doing?) 10:58, August 1, 2017 (UTC)
  • The fact that the page was created by a guy a week after he posted gaming creepypasta's on the Creepypasta Wikia says everything. And the fact that it's credibility was just like with Michael De Santa's Ghost ruined by clickbait YouTuber's puts salt in the wound.
  • The myth of trevor could be false on this location featured on the page. We only search for him near his house and the location where he died. However, what we don't do is to search for other non-physical clues, like on the internet, Michael's, Franklin's house. Ghost of Trevor could easily appear somewhere of these places. I don't vote no or yes, because it's still some KIND of mystery to me. - Mantiix (talk) 12:28, August 1, 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm on the fence with this vote as there are other pages, namely Michael De Santa's Ghost, that are listed as UNLIKELY despite having very little evidence. I think the fact a creepypasta editor created the article only adds more suspicion that it is a hoax, but there has been more interest in Trevor Phillip's whereabouts following the article's creation... My worry is that branding this myth as False due to very little evidence will create a snowball effect with other articles' status being called into question as many pages on the wiki are built off rumors and little proof. --Sasquatch101 (talk) 23:43, August 1, 2017 (UTC)
  • I strongly think that due to the amount of people asking for it to be renamed to false that this should be done as times before we have had people changing the existence and being told off because they haven't gone through a CNB vote. - JakVenomHD (talk) 02:16, August 2, 2017 (UTC)
  • If there's no files, then it doesn't exist. Case closed. - 50pxSparky_32150px 21:01, August 2, 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree as most "ghosts" are results of mods or just speculations of players. - IntenCity999

Request closed as Successful.--Sasquatch101 (talk) 06:08, July 15, 2017 (UTC)

Affiliate Red Dead Myths Wikia

This discussion is a Bureaucrat Only Vote. Any user may leave a comment.

Link to the wikia:

So this wikia is focused around myths in the Red Dead series games. I created it in 2016, and basically there is another one out there, but 1) It is dead. 2) Mine has more pages. That being I said I ask the Bureaucrats to affiliate my wikia. --Slash (talk) 19:42, July 9, 2017 (UTC)



  • Your wiki looks great and has a lot of potential. I never was a huge Red Dead fan so I never could devote a lot of energy toward building up the RDR Myths Wiki. Anyways I look forward to helping out on the potentially new affiliate.--Sasquatch101 (talk) 06:33, July 12, 2017 (UTC)

End of the User of the Month

Request closed as Unsuccessful by Boomer8 (Contact) 18:50, July 9, 2017 (UTC) As said in the title above, I think having too many daily things for now is not good as a reference to what Gunshow said, "Why even have monthly things if we only update the home page every 6 months?". This just hugely proves the point that UoM is not required at all. - AwesomeBoy



  • First of all, USE SIGNATURES! Second of all, don't end it. Just start editing the damn page. Slash (talk) 15:05, July 2, 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree with Slash, don't close it, just start updating it again. After all, you have admin rights and can edit the front page, you should take initiative and do it. - Gunshow (T, E)
  • Well, I know it is not used, buy let's keep it. There are not many users active now, and of they are, they actually were before so... Indep (Wanna map?|Wat I'm doing?) 19:34, July 2, 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't know where Gunshow said this to you, but UotM should absolutely not be canceled. The wiki isn't bursting with activity at the moment, but that shouldn't give the green light to remove cool interactive tools that make the Myth Wiki unique. Boomer8 (Contact) 05:39, July 4, 2017 (UTC)
  • Unique only until someone on GTA Wikia copies it. Slash (talk) 15:05, July 2, 2017 (UTC)
    • Without getting derailed, I presume you're referencing the HoF that the GTA Wiki employs; would you like to tell me how it was "copied"? Considering the fact numerous other Wikias, including the Wikipedia itself, host the same (or similar rewarding) feature, there is no 'copying' involved, especially when I get the impression that MW feel they own it as a feature only allowed for themselves. Whether or not Wikias with the same feature influenced the decision to employ such feature is perfectly acceptable, but 'copying' is a rather extreme word. Monk Talk 22:22, July 5, 2017 (UTC)
      • Funny how the GTA Wiki Staff only come here when something negative is said about them, You and Slash should keep your rivalry to yourself, not bring it out here, doing something like this will only bring damage to the wiki, which some of the GTA Wiki Staff want to do, Thanks. --AndreyFDTalk 22:35, July 5, 2017 (UTC)
      • I am not his 'rival'. And I am sure he does not consider himself my 'rival'. What I do hate is the GTA Wikia. But if you think I am the only one doing so, then you should visit the chat more often, thanks, Slash (talk) 07:08, July 6, 2017 (UTC)

Closed, as Indep won... again.Indep (Wanna map?|Wat I'm doing?) 19:52, May 28, 2017 (UTC)

Photographic Competition Voting (Final)

Hey there people! The first round of the competition is over. The winners of Vice City, San Andreas, and V sections are TheIndependent40, AwesomeBoy, and Mantiix, respectively. They are elected to the overall voting.


- No voting for yourselves.
- To leave a vote, user needs to have at least 20 edits and log in at least one month ago.
- Depending on the quantity of votes, voting will last from 2 to 11 days.

Leave your votes. Indep (Wanna map?|Wat I'm doing?) 20:05, May 17, 2017 (UTC)


Closed, as 2nd round begins. Indep (Wanna map?|Wat I'm doing?) 20:05, May 17, 2017 (UTC)

Photographic Competition Voting

Hey people, the competition time is over. Now the voting starts.


  • Voter needs to have at least 20 edits and needs to be logged in at least one month ago.
  • Vote can be left under every game once.
  • Competitors cannot vote for themselves.
  • Every 1st place of a game will be elected to the overall winner.
  • Depending of the quantity of votes, the voting will last from 2 to 11 days.

To leave a vote, type in the username of the author of picture you liked. Indep (Wanna map?|Wat I'm doing?) 20:01, May 12, 2017 (UTC)

Grand Theft Auto: Vice City

Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas

Grand Theft Auto V