FANDOM

­
965 Pages
1000px-Bigfoot This is Sasquatch101's official message wall. Please leave a message below and Sasquatch will get back to you. If its an emergency, contact another Wiki staff member. Do not alter or remove old messages without Sasquatch's approval.
A FANDOM user
  Loading editor
  • Heya, Sas. Wanted a heads up on how much does a block on people who has sockpuppets should last?

      Loading editor
    • My 2 cents: A block for sockpuppetry depends on the whether or not the user is using their other account maliciously.

      There are plenty of reasons that a user could be using an alt account, as is stated on the Sockpuppetry policy page itself. In this scenario, don't block the user or their alt account, simple as that.

      If the user is using one or more alt accounts for malicious purposes (vandalism, ban evading) then you have to take the initiative and permanently block the alt account (as stated on the Policy page) and then apply a harsh block on the offending user.

      At least that's how I interpret the policy.

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • After seeing what has recently been happening in the chat, I feel like we need a new 'Chat Interaction Ban' policy that Admins can apply on users if 2 or more are in a heavy hatred/argument towards each other.

    Note : If you haven't noticed this either, admins can't kick chatmods anymore. I hope you'll update this wiki's policy on banning and kicking users in chat.

      Loading editor
    • The Wiki's policy already has an Interaction Ban rule. If there is trouble between two or more users they need to contact a Bureaucrat first so the Interaction Ban can be enacted. Regarding the chat, there is no way for one Admin to kick another as they have equal power.

        Loading editor
    • Sasquatch101 wrote:
      The Wiki's policy already has an Interaction Ban rule. If there is trouble between two or more users they need to contact a Bureaucrat first so the Interaction Ban can be enacted. Regarding the chat, there is no way for one Admin to kick another as they have equal power.

      This is where you're wrong. I made sure just in case if Mantiix or Indep ever went rogue, I added a kick feature that'll kick admin-to-admin and so on as the recent FANDOM update made Chatmods immune from getting kicked by admins. So in short : admins can kick admins and can also return to kicking chatmods, post-FANDOM chat update.

      Also, what I asked from you is to add a 'Chat Interaction Ban', that only applies to interactions in the chat whereas the normal Interaction Ban is for B'crats to decide who'll not contact who on the wiki for how long. This new if-applied policy would be best if admins can do it as B'crats are not always online and disputes between users may get bigger by the time you guys even come to a vote that'll probably take more than 2 days (you guys took more than that to vote on my RfP) and/or, we could avoid disputes getting bigger if this policy is made and admins are allowed to ban users from contacting with each other on chat (the only place with most activity on this wiki is the chat anyways).

        Loading editor
    • What you are proposing is a system that could be heavily abused as a way to shut people up. The Interaction Ban currently on the Policy is sufficient as it's purpose is to prevent continual harassment on, and off the chat. More often than not, disputes or disagreements in the chat are resolved in a matter of minutes and does not require mediation. If a user is feeling harassed though, all they have to do is contact a Bureaucrat and the ban will be put in effect indefinitely until both users settle their differences. Admins kicking Admins is ridiculous and would only lead to more conflict.

        Loading editor
    • Can't say no to that but can't say yeah either. Fine. I forget the policy. But admins kicking admins is a thing I didn't want at all but it came with the mod for the wiki chat. My goal was to add kicking chat mods back but it got the admin kick feature as well so yeah.

      And for your info : AndreyFD was about to leave this wiki because of conflicts in the chat not being resolved. I had to later step in and ban Mantiix to cool the situation down. This all could've been avoided if only we had a chat interaction ban. If I were you, I'd try to know what happened in the chat in the past few days then see what to do about it instead of 'guessing' chat conflicts will resolve itself in a 'few minutes'.

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • Hey, can you have a look on there and decide?

      Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • Could you vote on my bureaucrat request? Thanks.

      Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • There's an ill written request on the GTA Wiki suggesting to remove the GTA Myths Wiki as an affiliate. I've left a message there, so I think you'd be interested in giving your opinion as well.

      Loading editor
    • I think some of his criticisms are valid, at least in terms of the content. We have a lot of pages in the cleanup category and I might add some more soon. But that's certainly no reason to completely cut off the wiki.


      In other news, did you see the people he's gonna put on the wiki's Hall of Fame? topkek

        Loading editor
    • I think what Boomer said was pieced together greatly, they went on saying how we have so many new myths that can be deemed bullshit but new pages and myths is what keeps the user toll up, a lot of new users come on looking to add their finds and queries, I fully believe that the new myths and theories is what sparked up a lot of new memberships.

      I mean, if we left all the content to just the bare, whats the use of maintaining this such? I believe we come here looking to better the Wikia and ourselves in what we can achieve.

      I'll stop now since it's starting to sound like a University speech, but yeah just thought I'd leave my few thoughts.

        Loading editor
    • What critics of this wiki don't seem to understand is that we are exactly that: a wiki. The purpose of this website is to archive all known myths, however large or small, and however true or false they are. If you have a large community that has been active for a long time, it's inevitable that some bullshit will appear eventually. Even Wikipedia has thousands of articles on hoaxes.

      This is why the wiki has the Myths categories, the infobox, and states the validity of the myth in the opening paragraph. Nowhere does this wiki try to convince people that false myths are true or vice versa.

      There have been so many arguments about this in the past, just ask Sasquatch or Boomer, and the conclusion is always the same: False myths are a part of the wiki.

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • Would you mind if I asked you for a quick chat?

      Loading editor
  • Hi Sasquatch101 im creating turkish version of GTA Myths wiki do you give permission? and can you add it to Foreign Languages 

    When i finish the turkish version of GTA myths wiki?

      Loading editor
  • Unfortunately I can't stand the shit that goes around here. Sorry to say it, but your wiki is falling apart. I'm leaving. Sorry to let you down. People are claiming I am abusing my rights, blocking users for no reason, being a "Wikia Lord". In that case, I'm off. Glad to see people treat me like this, perhaps just because I coincidently "replaced" Ali in the Staff roles. I see how this place works now. 

    In essence, I guess I don't meet the criteria of being a badmouthed, vandal, bad-behaved or immature guy to compete with Staff like AwesomeBoy, Mant and other, now "former" Staff. I see that the requirements of being Staff here need updating. 

    Peace out. Keep in touch if you want to. I really ain't fussed. Take care m8.

      Loading editor
  • Hey mate. Just keeping you up to date. Enough evidence came through to indicate Mant was/is creating socks. On that note, he's continuously vandalising pages which I'm having to rollback. Get back to me ASAP pal. 

    Update: Hank admitted to creating the sockpuppet accounts. However I believe he may be covering up for Mant. I've blocked both users. I'll leave it up to you.  

      Loading editor
  • The wikia is in chaos. A user came, and managed to get Indep demoted and blocked, Andrey blocked, and started a vote on basically banning free speech on user pages. MHM (Myth hunting Master) is making socks, and blaming their creation on Andrey, Mant and Indep, with no proof. He asked VaultBoy to block those three, but only Mant remains. Can't you do anything of it?

    -Slash

    (P.S Don't mind the Otto Von Bismarck photo.)

      Loading editor
    Monkeypolice188
    Monkeypolice188 closed this thread because:
    See my last message for the reason. This should be closed to avoid further arguments. Please reopen if you feel the need to, Sas. I am merely closing to avoid arguments continuing.
    16:32, September 20, 2016
    • View all 13 replies
    • Well guys on the bright side, I've talked with AndreyFD (aka SMG), he's gonna take a break, then come back afresh with no more vandal tendency. Pretty much handled that one. So AndreyFD/SMG is out of the picture now, all we gotta handle now is Indep and MHM.

        Loading editor
    • Let that be the end of this. Face it, neither can be proven to have commited these attacks, neither will face up to it, and that should be the end of this. No more accusations. This is the end. 

        Loading editor
Give Kudos to this message
You've given this message Kudos!
See who gave Kudos to this message

Ad blocker interference detected!


Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.