GTA Wiki:Community Noticeboard

Welcome to GTA Wiki's Community noticeboard.

Archives

• Archive 1
• Archive 2
• Archive 3
• Archive 4
• Archive 5
• Archive 6

Talk page rules apply here.

This noticeboard is for discussion and voting on changes to the wiki, reporting vandalism and wiki rule breaking, and reporting bad or unfair behaviour from GTA Wiki staff.

For requests for promotion, please go to GTA Wiki:Requests for Promotion.

Voting Rules
Since voting about a change can cause arguments, here are the rules.

• Anyone can start a topic for a community vote.
• Please be civil when voting, and never condemn another users vote.
• Voting usually lasts 3 to 5 days.

Please input your new requests above the old ones. That way, we can easily spot it rather than looking for it.

Chat Moderators

I have noticed that there has been an increased use of chat lately so I was thinking, should we promote 2 or 3 users who aren't already staff members to be chat moderators? I personally think it would be a good idea. What do you guys think? LS11sVaultBoy (Talk) 20:15, March 24, 2015 (UTC)

Votes

• Neutral - Rain - Talk 20:16, March 24, 2015 (UTC)
• No - (talk/stalk/blog) 20:50, March 24, 2015 (UTC)
• No Leo68 (talk) 21:06, March 24, 2015 (UTC)
• No - SJWalker (talk) 23:27, March 24, 2015 (UTC)
• No - DocVinewood (talk) 00:38, March 25, 2015 (UTC)
• No - () 01:19, March 25, 2015 (UTC)Smashbro8

Comments

• Most of the times there are people in chat there is at least one patroller/admin in. So I'm not sure we need more. Rain - Talk 20:16, March 24, 2015 (UTC)
• When the chat is on, usually me, Sam or Smashbro are in the chat, we are chat moderators too. (talk/stalk/blog) 20:50, March 24, 2015 (UTC)
• As the others have said, since Patrollers are "security guards", chat moderation would come under "security", which all Patrollers are automatically promoted to. There's no need to create two roles for work which one Patroller can do alone. SJWalker (talk) 23:27, March 24, 2015 (UTC)
• I don't think it's necessary, staff members are doing their work already. DocVinewood (talk) 00:38, March 25, 2015 (UTC)
• Due to me, Andre, and Monkeypolice taking over the Chat, we have the ability to ban and kick troublesome users in chat, which makes giving two new users rollback rights unnecessary. I constantly watch over the chat to make sure everything is running smoothly once I am in it.  () 01:19, March 25, 2015 (UTC)Smashbro8
  • Chatmod rights come without rollback rights. The question is about if we should give chatmod status to users that regularly come into chat. Not if we need two more patrollers. Rain - Talk 06:49, March 25, 2015 (UTC)

Administration Election

Closed SJ Walker (5) 558050 (3)

As I am now bureaucrat there is a vacancy for my former adminstrator position. 558050 and SJWalker are the most qualified patrollers, due to the fact that two were recently demoted and two are on probation. Set up your votes below. Unlike a request for promotion, you should write the user's name and your signature as opposed to a yes or no.

Sam

About me

I'm Sam, I've been a patroller for just over two months. I am still learning my way around in some areas and can occasionally undo correct edits, but I am also quick at spotting vandals, and can give advice to any user who needs it, likewise those who need a "talking to" in certain areas. I try to look at disputes from a netural point of view and listen to both sides before making a decision. I am aware that on occasions I can be seen as "picking on" certain users, but I try and treat everyone equally and attempt to come to a civilised and reasonable conclusion to any disputes. Positive and negative feedback is welcome. Thank you for reading this. Best of luck to 558050 as well. SJWalker (talk) 01:15, March 24, 2015 (UTC)

558050

About me

Hello, fellow wikia contributors. I have been contributing to this wikia for 17 months by now, almost one year and a half, during this time I acquired a lot of experience editing articles and dealing with other users. My contributions here include the creation of dozens of articles, plus major updates to already existing articles, more recently the online heists pages.

I'm always trying to be friendly with other users and resolve any kind of issue as polite as possible, but I'm not afraid to be a little rough if the situation demands it.

My grammar was improved since my promotion to patroller, so I think that this will not be a problem anymore. Thanks for you attention. Good luck to Sam and goodbye. DLVIIIL Talk 01:24, March 24, 2015 (UTC)

Votes

• 558050 - Leo68 (talk) 01:28, March 24, 2015 (UTC)
• 558050 - smurfy ^(coms) 02:24, March 24, 2015 (UTC)
• SJWalker - Mortsnarg (talk) 02:44, March 24, 2015 (UTC)
• SJWalker - Rain - Talk 06:23, March 24, 2015 (UTC)
• 558050 - LS11sVaultBoy (Talk) 19:55, March 24, 2015 (UTC)
• SJWalker - DocVinewood (talk) 00:38, March 25, 2015 (UTC)
• SJWalker - () 01:19, March 25, 2015 (UTC)Smashbro8
• SJWalker - (talk/stalk/blog) 01:34, March 25, 2015 (UTC)

Comments

• I'm undecided at the moment, both Sam and 558 have awesome editing skills, I'll have to think about this for a while before voting. (talk/stalk/blog) 01:23, March 24, 2015 (UTC)
  • After hours thinking, I finally decided and my vote goes to Sam, 558 has administrative skills, like asking to rename lots of pages, having a higher knowledge about the series (not to mention that he resurrected the GTA CW mission pages), however, Sam quickly detect sockpuppets and quickly report vandals, which for me is the best point to vote for him, sorry 558, but I can't vote for both. (talk/stalk/blog) 01:34, March 25, 2015 (UTC)
• I agree with Andre. I'm also undecided. Both of you are amazing editors.  () 01:27, March 24, 2015 (UTC)Smashbro8
• I had to think about. SJWalker is an excellent editor and is great at cleaning up pages, however, 558050 is more active and has a higher edit counter. SJWalker may have better English, but that is because 558050 is Brazillian. Nothing personal, Sam. Leo68 (talk) 01:28, March 24, 2015 (UTC)
• This is difficult. Weighing up who I think would make the best admin right now (558) vs who I think would probably make the better admin in the long term (Sam). Another couple of months and this vote probably would have gone the other way. Whoever "loses" this vote in the end, you are both doing a great job and it will not be a reflection on your capabilities. smurfy ^(coms) 02:24, March 24, 2015 (UTC)
• This is a tough one! You both are very good editors and I think both of you have made an excellent contributions to the GTA Wiki, but I gotta' pick SJWalker/ Sam on this one. In debates he's always had a good habit of looking at the situation (as he stated himself) with a neutral standpoint that doesn't really pick a "side" until he's seen the two reasons for why or why not. That's a good quality in a person higher up in the commmunity. He also has pretty good grammer and I almost never see mistakes in that area. If there's one thing I think he could improve on, it's looking into something a little more and doing a little more research, but the last time this was a problem was a month or two ago, and that was minor. That isn't to say that 558050 is bad, in fact it's pretty close and I appreciate 558050 just as much, but there can only be one, and that one is SJWalker for the reasons stated. Good luck to both of you! Mortsnarg (talk) 02:44, March 24, 2015 (UTC)
• Do we really need to rush on promoting a new administrator?
  If it's important, then my vote goes for Sam. Pretty much for the reasons that were alreayd mentioned by Mortsnarg. Rain - Talk 06:23, March 24, 2015 (UTC)
• This is a tough choice, I think both deserve the position. I will vote later. DocVinewood (talk) 10:34, March 24, 2015 (UTC)

  First of all I agree with Rain, is promoting a new administrator really needed now? In any case, I finally decided to vote for Sam. He spots and reports vandals, cleans up pages, has a very good grammar and is a level-headed person. 558050 is a great editor as well, but sadly I can't vote for both. DocVinewood (talk) 00:38, March 25, 2015 (UTC)

• No offense to Sam, who is too a great staff member, but I feel 558 is more qualified at this moment in time. LS11sVaultBoy (Talk) 19:55, March 24, 2015 (UTC)
• I agree with Rain and Doc, it's not necessary to hurry for a new admin. The wiki can run smoothly with vacant spots, like how it did when me, CJ Jr. and Leon Davis were the only admins. I just feel we need more rules and protections to the Requests for Promotion page so users don't troll and make a request thinking they will get promoted. That other user's request should be deleted. Anyway, since I sadly cannot pick both when both SJ Walker and 558050 do excellent work here, I'd pick Sam for the same reasons as DocVinewood's.  () 01:19, March 25, 2015 (UTC)Smashbro8
• Our new administrator is SJWalker! Leo68 (talk) 01:47, March 25, 2015 (UTC)

Mission Pages Cleanup

A notice to all users; a majority of the mission pages need a major cleanup. The quotes have links, the grammar is poor and the pages are poorly assembled. If you can, check over the pages so that they can be cleaned up. If you don't know what qualifies as a page needing cleanup, add the template so another user can clean up the page. Leo68 (talk) 07:34, March 22, 2015 (UTC)

• Yeah, I noticed that, i'm checking out articles that needs a cleanup, Sam is working on it. (talk/stalk/blog) 14:08, March 22, 2015 (UTC)

Updating policy: Trainers

Closed as Successful by Leo68 (talk) 01:23, March 25, 2015 (UTC)

This has been on my mind for the last couple of days, as I've seen a couple of articles with posts relating to the use of trainers. Since the policy prohibits images of modified vehicles, I think this should be extended to include trainers and modification tools. As Leon clarified for me last night, any information should be related to GTA as Rockstar created it, so any modification or trainer-related posts should be removed. The way I see it, since only stock photos of vehicles are allowed, only information relating to the "stock" game should be included too. I hope I've written this in a way that makes sense, and I'd love to know what you all think about this. SJWalker (talk) 22:07, March 21, 2015 (UTC)

Question - Should we prohibit Mods/Trainers in articles?

Votes

• Yes - smurfy ^(coms) 22:10, March 21, 2015 (UTC)
• Neutral  Yes- (talk/stalk/blog) 22:17, March 21, 2015 (UTC)
• Ofc - Rain - Talk 22:21, March 21, 2015 (UTC)
• Yes- Hunter(Talk/Stalk) 23:59, March 24, 2015 (UTC)

Comments

• It gets a little curly when you see what happened after the community split. For a short while, GTAwiki was thought of as the home of modded content. Thankfully that was stopped but there are still remnants scattered throughout the article content. I agree with Leon, the wiki should be "official content only" except for a small number of articles dedicated to Modifications. smurfy ^(coms) 22:13, March 21, 2015 (UTC)
• This can be a bit rough, some vehicles such as the Andromada, Brickade and FBI Truck can only be spawned with trainers, same with weapons and characters, so I agree to forbid pictures of mods, unofficial content and partially revealed content, but not content (vehicles, weapons and other content) which is in the game, but unavailable without trainers. (talk/stalk/blog) 22:17, March 21, 2015 (UTC)
  • They are part of the vanilla game. It's official content. Mentioning that these are spawner mod-exclusives because they were cut is OK. Rain - Talk 22:21, March 21, 2015 (UTC)
  • I see your point there Andre. If the policy is changed, a link could be posted to the GTA Mods Wiki or GTA Fanon Wiki for anyone who wants to add mod-content. I'm probably going to contradict my argument here but a brief sentence explaining they can be spawned via mods would be acceptable, but not to reference specific mods or methods of modding (i.e. tweaking files). If the vehicles are in the files then they still exist in the game, so they technically aren't modded "into" the game because they're already there. SJWalker (talk) 22:27, March 21, 2015 (UTC)
  • Exactly, it's acceptable to say that the mentioned vehicles are only obtainable with mods or trainers, but it's unacceptable to say "The Dukes can perform a wheelie, but to do this, you'll need to mod the game". (talk/stalk/blog) 22:39, March 21, 2015 (UTC)
• Yes and that's something that I was removing a while ago. The Modifications page has no purpose other than advertising. Saying that the graphics of San Andreas can be improved through modding is completely irrelevant. If anyone want to edit content about mods they should go to the GTA Fanon Wiki. This is GTA Wiki, aka official content, not fan-made content. Rain - Talk 22:21, March 21, 2015 (UTC)
  • Changed my vote then, I agree with you. (talk/stalk/blog) 22:27, March 21, 2015 (UTC)

Media Policy: A New-Look Image Policy

Closed as successful by Leo68 (talk) 02:33, March 6, 2015 (UTC).

This has been lingering around the wiki for a few days. A policy about uploading videos to the wiki has been suggested by Andre. My idea;

We add info to the image policy about uploading videos and rename it the Media Policy. It will be in one location for users to understand how to add both images and videos here.

• ALL videos must have a clear picture and clean audio.
• All videos must be copyrighted to show who the video belongs to, the video's site and Rockstar Games.
  • All videos have to be GTA related.
• Videos MUST NOT violate other policies such as leaked information.
• Videos must have an extra copyright if it features music.

Feel free to add to the policy and vote on whether or not we should implement this. Leo68 (talk) 09:02, March 1, 2015 (UTC)

Votes

• Yes - Leo68 (talk) 09:02, March 1, 2015 (UTC)
• Yes -  (talk) | (stalk) 11:25, March 1, 2015 (UTC)
• Yes - (talk/stalk/blog) 13:51, March 1, 2015 (UTC)
• Yes - SJWalker (talk) 13:55, March 1, 2015 (UTC)
• Yes - Hunter(Talk/Stalk) 18:03, March 1, 2015 (UTC)
• Yes - smurfy ^(coms) 21:12, March 1, 2015 (UTC)

Comments

• Absolutely, i've seen quite a few pages with videos which contravene these rules. Template:Monkeypolice188/Sig
• I would add that videos should not contain any form of self-promotion (audio or text) or advertising apart from a watermark (we obviously have to allow this since we are using GTASeriesVideos we can't really say it is prohibited like we do for still images). smurfy ^(coms) 21:12, March 1, 2015 (UTC)
• The vote is closed and the image policy has been renamed media policy and updated. Leo68 (talk) 02:39, March 6, 2015 (UTC)

Missions in GTA 2

I was just writing this to let you guys know who want to get some edits that most of the missions in GTA 2 still need infoboxes and images. To get the images, watch GTA Series Videos play the mission on Youtube, print screen it while it is saying the mission name and then crop it in an editing application such as Paint.NET. I'm currently doing it as well but I'm going to have to continue tomorrow as I am going shortly.

Also, the missions in GTA 1 are pretty much a lost cause because I can't find videos of the missions anywhere to get images or even an understanding of what happens in the mission. If anyone can do either of these things then that would be great.

Thanks, LS11sVaultBoy (Talk) 23:55, January 31, 2015 (UTC)

Patroller to Administrator Qualification Criteria

Closed as unsuccessful - LS11sVaultBoy (Talk) 23:55, January 31, 2015 (UTC)

Background

A week ago, Leo made an update to the RfP rules to add the probation period for new Patrollers as had been agreed by the Bureaucrats and Admins. At the same time he also changed the line relating to experience required for applicants to the Administrator role.

“

To qualify for administrator rights, editors must have been active for four months with no rules violations.

”

— Prior version

“

To qualify for administrator rights, editors must have been active patrollers for four months with no rule violations.

”

— Revised version

This was probably an outcome of a discussion Tom had been involved in with with Wildbrick142 about that section but he had stated

“

I think you would be best if you ran for Patroller first just to make it "fair" so that you get promoted in the same way as everyone else and then a month or two later you could run for admin.

”

— Tom replying to Wildbrick142

As I discussed with Leo at the time, I probably agree with the change (despite it directly impacting my personal agenda), but I don't believe it was an authorized rule update and it should be discussed and agreed by Admin/Bureaucrat staff before being added. Similarly to the Probation discussion, Patrollers and editors should not get a say in this discussion as we would have a vested interest in retaining the status quo. smurfy ^(coms) 01:43, January 28, 2015 (UTC)

Bureaucrat and Admin only vote

Votes

• Yes  No () 02:00, January 28, 2015 (UTC)Smashbro8
• No - Jeff (talk·stalk)
• No - Leo68 (talk) 04:37, January 28, 2015 (UTC)
• No - Messi1983 (talk) 10:01, January 28, 2015 (UTC)
• No - LS11sVaultBoy (Talk) 15:44, January 28, 2015 (UTC)
• No - Carl Johnson Jr. (talk) 00:19, January 30, 2015 (UTC)

Discussion (all editors welcome)

• I don't want to just say "if you've been blocked you can never be promoted" because it's not necessary. We've had multiple editors who got blocked, realized that this wasn't one of those online communities that doesn't actually enforce its rules, cleaned up their act and went on to be administrators. If there are outstanding behavior concerns about any editor running for promotion, those concerns should be brought up during the voting - that's what the vote is for in the first place, and that's why it's supposed to last for a week. As for length of time an editor has to be editing to be eligible to promote, I don't have much of a problem with such a thing but I don't really think it's necessary. Lack of being active long enough is always brought up when new editors go for a promotion too soon, and we've also had a couple particularly good editors show up and get promoted more quickly than usual. Basically, I feel it's better to consider every editor individually rather than try to make ironclad rules, because ironclad rules tend to do more harm than good in the long run. Jeff (talk·stalk) 02:25, January 28, 2015 (UTC)
• After reading what McJeff said, I'm on his side. () 02:32, January 28, 2015 (UTC)Smashbro8
• Since Jeff is happy to include all editors in the discussion (but not the vote), I would suggest Leo's edit requires a minor semantic change: To qualify for administrator rights, patrollers must have been active for four months with no rule violations. smurfy ^(coms) 03:02, January 28, 2015 (UTC)
• I agree about keeping the "four months as a patroller to become an admin" rule. Experience should be an important aspect to be promoted, and I was never a fan of promoting people who are in the wikia for one or two months just because their edits are good, It makes the promotion seems way too easy and insignificant. Making it take longer not just makes the person who wants to get the promotion work harder, but also make him valorize the position more when he finally get it, with also reduces the chances of him resigning too soom. DLVIIIL Talk 03:19, January 28, 2015 (UTC)
• To reitirate. I made an alteration to the admin area as it said Users must have been active for four months. I figured, being a first time users never usually make admin first, they have to become patrollers. I changed the word users to patrollers. I figured it would make more sense. I changed this when I added the information about probationary periods for patrollers to the Requests for Promotion page. If people were confused, tell me, and then if it made more sense then I could have changed it back. I don't think users should be allowed to skip Patroller and make admin. It just can't justified. I also believe we don't need to change anything about administrator rights. I voted no. Leo68 (talk) 04:37, January 28, 2015 (UTC)
• Man, I really must not have been as clear in the way I had written this out as I thought I was.
  • I'm not suggesting I thought the rule wording meant editors could skip the Patroller step, although that was a little ambiguous and probably needed clarifying, as shown by the question Wildbrick posed to Tom. 

Prior to Leo's edit, the way the rule was written and the way I understood it, any Patroller with a total of 4 months editing could have applied for Admin. (e.g. 2 months as editor to qualify for patroller, 2 months as patroller to qualify for admin). After the edit, that was now a total of 6 months "minimum" (e.g. 2 months as editor to qualify for patroller, 4 months as patroller to qualify for admin). That was what the change meant to the rule to me. 

The vote here was: Should Patrollers now be required to serve a minimum of 4 months as a Patroller to qualify to apply for an Administrator position? not whether Admin positions should be open to non-patrollers. smurfy ^(coms) 05:12, January 28, 2015 (UTC)

• I don't think that there should be a prohibition of not getting promoted if an editor was blocked. Some people who have previously been blocked, learn from their mistakes and work hard to qualify for a staff position. Hence in my opinion their should not be a rule like "If you ever got blocked, you can never be promoted".Hunter(Talk/Stalk) 15:14, January 28, 2015 (UTC)
• What everyone said. (talk) 15:17, January 28, 2015 (UTC)
• Jeff is right. Proof here and here. Rain - Talk 15:25, January 28, 2015 (UTC)
• A vote within six monthss is justifiable. We're not going to promote someone who was recently banned, but we're not going to deny previously banned users from applying for promotion. Leo68 (talk) 15:27, January 28, 2015 (UTC)
• I agree with Leo. The applying person should not be banned in last 4 or 6 months.Hunter(Talk/Stalk) 15:33, January 28, 2015 (UTC)
• I agree with Jeff. LS11sVaultBoy (Talk) 15:44, January 28, 2015 (UTC)
• I agree with Jeff too. Promotions should be considered on an individual basis, as some new users hit the ground running whilst others get into the swing of it gradually. When it comes to patrollers becoming admins, however, I think there should be a minimum amount of time, as the step up is a big one and some sink and others swim. With regards to welcoming back banned members, I think there should also be a minimum amount of time (four months to become patrollers, six to become admins) before they can apply for staff positions as that allows the rest of us to see if they've learnt their lessons. For users like Sasquatch, it's too early for him to be considered again as he's very inactive and we're having to remind him how to behave. I think returning users deserve second chances, but they must be earnt. SJWalker (talk) 15:58, January 28, 2015 (UTC)
• Promotions require special examinations of the users. I agree with Leo. Carl Johnson Jr. (talk) 00:19, January 30, 2015 (UTC)

XPanetta

Heads up to all the users, XPanetta is going onto other wikis to convince users to un-block him now that Ilan is gone. Ignore him, if the harassment continues, report him to an admin, or if you can block him from the wiki like I have. See the latest log on The Bill Wikia, where I am a Bureaucrat (he has been blocked from said wiki). The first notice was in September, and the most recent was today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leon Davis (talk • contribs) Please remember to sign your talk page messages with ~~~~.

Thanks for the warning Leo. Considering Tom was one of the ones harrassed by X I can't see him unblocking X any time soon, but we'll all keep our eyes open for him. I think eventually Wikia will do an IP block on him if he continues his harrassment and gets blocked from wikis one by one. SJWalker (talk) 16:38, January 20, 2015 (UTC)

I blocked him a month ago on another Wiki for harassing Smashbro. Ever since he got blocked he has so far only cross-wiki harrassed administrators to get unblocked. I'm thinking about filling a report to Wikia against him. I could read once that harrassment can lead to your account being globally blocked. Rain - Talk 17:17, January 20, 2015 (UTC)

I'd file a report if I were you Rain. There's enough evidence of harrassment and he even helps us by listing what he was blocked for. SJWalker (talk) 17:41, January 20, 2015 (UTC)

I don't think our admin cleanout has been that drastic that trolls like this will get away with asking to have well-deserved infinite blocks overturned. His current harrassing and pleading and demanding is no different to what he has been doing constantly since he was first warned here, let alone after his block(s). Wikia staff have told him point blank he deserved the block and he should pull his head in, but he hasn't given up. Eventually I think he will get a global Wikia block. In the mean time, I do feel sorry for those of you who have your other wikia activity advertised in your profiles which makes you potential targets for him. smurfy ^(coms) 07:50, January 21, 2015 (UTC)

He messaged me on my talk page on wikianswers. I reverted the edit stating that I do not wish to discuss GTA Wiki on another wiki. If he continues such harrassment I will block him there. Messi1983 (talk) 11:33, January 22, 2015 (UTC)

Report

As I am busy today coupled with what appear to be internet problems (pages that take time to load and etc.), I'm putting here all evidence I could gather regarding XPanettaa harrassing others. If anyone can report him, they must do this through this. One should provide evidence of it as I doubt Wikia staff would deal with someone without proof. If anyone has more evidence of it, post it below.

Evidence:

• XP's thread on Community Wiki: http://community.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:740624
• XP's original request to be unblocked to Ilan (at least the only one Ilan replied to): http://reddead.wikia.com/wiki/User_talk:Ilan_xd#Block
• Ilan's reply to XP with a clear "NO": http://reddead.wikia.com/wiki/User_talk:XPanettaa#RE:
• Harrassment of Smashbro8: http://watchdogs.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:12995 and http://midnightclub.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:4308
• Harrassment of Leon Davis: http://thebill.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:11869
• Harrassment of The Tom: http://mafiagame.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:18856
• Harrassment of Messi1983 mentioned above: http://answers.wikia.com/wiki/User_talk:Messi1983?diff=5935870&oldid=5294604

I'll reply to any questions about it on my talk page. Rain - Talk 14:19, January 22, 2015 (UTC)

He knows some of us are admins/bureaucrats of other wikis, he will be harrising us as soon as he knows which wiki we run, he has been in multiple wikis, such as the Midnight Club wiki, the Bill wiki, the Watch Dogs wiki, the Red Dead wiki, the Mafia wiki, he didn't attempt to visit my Scarface wiki yet, but i'll not even answer him, he'll be automatically blocked, he and Sean are a pain in the ass. (talk) 15:41, January 22, 2015 (UTC)

Update

Report filed. I have sent a report including the evidence to Wikia, and received an email back saying they will look into the evidence and get back to me within two days if necessary. SJWalker (talk) 15:26, January 22, 2015 (UTC)

I have received an email from the Wiki moderators. Here is the email in full: "Hello, Thanks for contacting us, and apologies for the slow response. I have communicated to XPanettaa that his actions are not reasonable, and that he should desist in his pestering about the block. Hopefully this will have a positive effect. With regards the other user, they do currently have a Wikia-wide block against those accounts - so you shouldn't be continuing to have issues with them. Has there been any recent activity around that? (http://community.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:741274#38appears to come a little out of the blue, the previous response being in November). Thanks again for bringing this to our attention, and best regards, George Marbulcanti (Kirkburn) Wikia Community Support" SJWalker (talk)

XPanettaa is still trying to get unblocked, and AK-28 is attempting to advise him on how to do that - [1]. Jeff (talk·stalk) 02:54, January 28, 2015 (UTC)