The Sims Wiki talk:Admin Portal

Anonymous vandal
Remember the anonymous vandal who kept inserting false copyright to files I mentioned months ago, and then some more anons spammed some articles with proxy? The file licensing vandal last very long, until Wikia broke Lab's handy tool for licensing the image files. I don't know if it's either good or bad. Thankfully Beds has taken care of licensing the files these days. You might not realize this vandal anyway, unless you keep track of Special:RecentChanges.

Recently, the number of anonymous edits increase. Some anons now insert false information, while some are just plain vandalism. I know I can't tell whether they're the same culprit or the old culprit who's changing target or maybe completely different people or what. Sometimes anons even made rightful edits, so I suppose it's not a pattern. Maybe I'm just a little more paranoid recently. All I can say is keep an eye on anonymous edits as they can easily slip past and their edits remain unnoticed.  Nikel  Talk  –  Vote!  07:39, June 22, 2013 (UTC)
 * I must say I have my suspicions on these vandals and have been keeping a very close eye on these edits they have been making. I've also been patrolling edits made in Files, which is where most of the vandalism has been taking place. I have also taken note of a few of these IP's, just for reference. Beds (parlare - da leggere ) 15:57, July 30, 2013 (UTC)

"About us" section/page
I've been thinking about creating a section on our administrators page, or else creating a new page, dedicated to giving little biographies about each of the admins and b'crats on the wiki. We could link to this page for the benefit of our Facebook or Twitter followers, for instance, as well as on the wiki. The page would contain sections on each member of "staff" with general information, which could include:
 * First name (if they're comfortable saying it)
 * General location (including their time zone)
 * How they first got into The Sims
 * What other games they play
 * What kinds of "special jobs", if any, they engage in while editing The Sims Wiki (e.g. perhaps an admin has a knack for categorization, or likes to make templates, etc)

I'm thinking there would ultimately be less than a paragraph for each admin. But, it would be a good way, I think, to personify the admins and show others how we came to be on TSW.

Thoughts? --  LostInRiverview talk ~ blog 02:36, July 10, 2013 (UTC)
 * That's kind of interesting! Although, personally, I wouldn't put my first name (which by the way is not the one on my other account-name, which was actually composed of two of my last names/surnames, but I have given away these already, so giving my first name seems unlikely to me) nor any social networks. But I think it might be interesting in the sense that is helpful to other users in order to contact us, know the admin a little bit better, know in what each admin can help more in depth and feel comfortable about talking and asking for help to us, because, after all, we all have been newbies too - "How they first got into The Sims"! -- RoseGui ✿ ( talk ) 06:19, July 10, 2013 (UTC)
 * I guess that's not a bad idea. It could be some sort of quick introduction or get-to-know to the admins. Maybe as long as personal information doesn't need to be involved.  Nikel  Talk  –  Vote!  06:40, July 11, 2013 (UTC)
 * I reckon it's a good idea, too. However, I think that each person should choose how much information they want to reveal about themselves, so we don't pressure anyone into doing anything. :) ~ Waikikamukow  ( Anyone wanna chat? ) 03:02, July 13, 2013 (UTC)
 * This would be quite good, AFAIK not many wikis do this, so perhaps it could start a trend or something? I don't know... As long as the admins are okay with some details of their lives being shared on the wiki. Beds (parlare - da leggere ) 11:14, July 26, 2013 (UTC)

June 2013 Activity Update
LiR completely forgot about this. Fortunately as the superior user with "Lost" in their name, I've come to deliver the stats only 12 days late.

I'll only compare May to June 2013. If you want the earlier figures, check the May update.

I was too lazy to do a 2012 to 2013 comparison. Based on these figures, we've had a generally positive month, possibly largely down to the Island Paradise release. Let's hope things stay bright throughout the summer and beyond. 21:31, July 12, 2013 (UTC)

User:TheSimInvasioner and User:TheBlackAces
According to TheSimInvasioner's userpage, his old account was TheBlackAces, and he made another one instead of renaming it. However, I'm uncertain if they're the same person. He could be lying. If he is, what should we do to TheBlackAces?  Nikel  Talk  –  Vote!  03:33, July 17, 2013 (UTC)
 * A CheckUser would be worthless here given the data only goes back to 3 months ago and TheBlackAces made their last edit in February. The only thing we can really do is assume good faith that TheBlackAces has switched over to TheSimInvasioner and block the former as a security measure. 09:41, July 17, 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, block, but don't blank, and leave email enabled just in case. Dharden (talk) 12:03, July 17, 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, I have indefinitely blocked TheBlackAces, but did not check any of the boxes. Dharden (talk) 12:15, July 17, 2013 (UTC)

User:Raving-ben and User:Hump-hump-ben
If you look closely, both and  have identical names, and their language is similar too, especially with the annoying "me nd ma mates" and "ay/aw, ken?" This is more serious than being underage, for sockpuppetry and having already been permanently banned before.  Nikel  Talk  –  Vote!  10:28, July 20, 2013 (UTC)
 * The former was almost 2 years ago. CheckUser records only go back to 3 months ago so we can only act on behavioural evidence. That said, their behaviour does look strikingly similar as well as the username combination. Given that neither of the users have actually done anything useful, I wouldn't mind giving Hump the permanent boot. 11:04, July 20, 2013 (UTC)
 * Sometimes, some users return after several months or years gone. I think he just forgot his old username or forgot he was blocked, so he made another account.  Nikel  Talk  –  Vote!  12:34, July 20, 2013 (UTC)
 * Seeing as the behavioural evidence is there with no objections, I've gone and issued a permanent block to Hump's account. 23:52, July 20, 2013 (UTC)

User:Cubistic.mage
, as well as their IP address, is yet to make a single constructive contribution to the wiki. Within the space of 5 days this user has been blocked for copying and pasting articles from the BioShock Wiki, copying and pasting elements of other userpages onto their own (as well as a userpage for the aforementioned IP address which has been create-protected), uploading useless files and applying them to articles, failing to license images appropriately, talk page spam and reverting anybody, with both the user account and IP address, who also finds the user's contributions to be nonconstructive.

At this stage it's probably too early to consider issuing a permanent block despite my lack of faith that we're going to see any improvements here. TSW:ER might be the best solution if we want to give the user a chance to clean their act up but I'd like to hear what others think about this before we do anything. 11:28, July 20, 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, so, I've just given him his final warning. One more step out of line and he's gone. If anybody wishes to dispute this or has a better idea then feel free to bring it forward but I'm optimistic we're not going to witness any improvement. 12:00, July 20, 2013 (UTC)
 * Unsurprisingly, this user was quick to ignore his final warning/chance for redemption. A permanent block has been issued. 12:06, July 20, 2013 (UTC)
 * What should we do about the IP? Dharden (talk) 12:14, July 20, 2013 (UTC)
 * Well that lasts pretty quick. And I only left for an hour. The IP is blocked automatically if the user is blocked, isn't it?  Nikel  Talk  –  Vote!  12:21, July 20, 2013 (UTC)
 * The IP should be on autoblock for now. That only lasts 1 day so I'd suggest keeping an eye on it. If this guy acts up again, we can ban the IP. 12:27, July 20, 2013 (UTC)
 * He acted up with the IP shortly after his autoblock expired. I've banned the IP for 1 month. The address is apparently static but I'd watch the 75.118 range closely as the DHCP records have been completely wrong in the past... 23:24, July 21, 2013 (UTC)

Just curious. Does have anything to do with ? No wonder the username sounded familiar to me when I first heard it. According to the ban reason, Cubisticmage was a sock of someone. If they're the same person, could he be a returning vandal who evaded ban (like Raving-ben, see above)? Well, since he's blocked already, we can't do anything else, but I'm just saying.  Nikel  Talk  –  Vote!  06:22, July 28, 2013 (UTC)

User:MezTV
Except for one post to an article talk page, MezTV's contributions have been limited to posting her Let's Play videos, and occasionally adding them to the related videos list. The videos I have sampled are not licensed, and are not used on any articles. This user appears to be using the wiki as her personal video stash. I don't think we have any policy against this other than policies on licensing and on unused media. My inclination is to remove the videos, but I'd like to hear what other admins think before taking action. Dharden (talk) 22:06, July 23, 2013 (UTC)
 * If they've just been listed here and aren't used anywhere (even in her own userspace) then it's safe to remove them and notify the user. This could have been prevented if Wikia didn't create file pages for embedded videos as if they were user uploads. There is a discussion going on about this issue but it's slow taking off. 10:00, July 24, 2013 (UTC)
 * The videos have been removed, and I have left a message on the user's talk page. Dharden (talk) 14:45, July 24, 2013 (UTC)
 * I am beginning to wonder if this user actually reads her talk page. Her response to a polite "please don't do this again" was to do it again. Dharden (talk) 16:51, July 26, 2013 (UTC)

Recoloring the admin name highlights
I'd like to propose that we re-color the administrator name highlights. I'm referring to the feature we've implemented where administrator and bureaucrat names are given a special color (example: User:Beds and User:Lost Labyrinth ). I'd like to recolor them so that they are both the same (or a similar) color.

I like the fact that admins are highlighted, as it makes it easier to pick us out of a list of names and thus makes it easier for users to find us. But, I think having red for sysops and green for bureaucrats just gives the misconception that the two users have different capabilities or are unequal, despite the fact that sysops and bureaucrats are pretty much the same (excluding the power to promote, which is pretty much irrelevant 99% of the time).

So, my suggestion is that we recolor the administrator names to green... this is based solely on my personal preference for green over red :p. If need be, we can come to some compromise color for all of us.

Thoughts? --  LostInRiverview talk ~ blog 05:29, July 26, 2013 (UTC)
 * Initially having their colours separated was solely for the purposes of identification. Logically thinking however, the only time that bureaucrats are really needed over any other administrator is for a user rights adjustment which doesn't happen as often as one may think, so I'm in support of this. Green bears a close resemblance to the series so I'm okay with that.


 * In all honesty, I'd actually also be in favour of removing the highlights that are in place for Wikia's global user rights (staff, VSTF etc.) as they're updated on Wikia's end very frequently and it would be too much of a burden to update, not to mention we hardly ever see them here. I'd still like for the bots to keep their highlight as despite all the current bots having the word "bot" incorporated into their username somehow, you never know when somebody will create one with a creative or "different" name that could easily be confused with a normal user. That and to avoid confusion with any other user. 10:12, July 26, 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with the colour change; it could easily be implemented and I don't really see a real reason as to why admins names are red and 'crats are in green. I also agree with lostlab's suggestion of removing the highlighted Wikia staff and VSTF users. Beds (parlare - da leggere ) 11:21, July 26, 2013 (UTC)
 * I feel this is a better idea, because it could seem to a new user that they are two different types of users, where the only difference is the modification of user rights. I also feel that it would be better purely because userpages have the "Admin" tag on them, regardless of whether they are actually admins or bureaucrats, so why have different coloured names as identification whereas the actual pages don't (aside from the addition on the actual page itself, not the section with Birthday, gender etc.), so I feel this would clear up any confusion and dominance produced by a simple difference in colours. As for the removal of Wikia Staff and VSTF, I can safely say their removal won't be noticed. Asher Éire 'Sup? 12:48, July 26, 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm feeling indifferent, although I actually agree with the main point being crats shouldn't differ from admins. I'm comfortable with the current condition, but having this change isn't bad.  Nikel  Talk  –  Vote!  15:50, July 27, 2013 (UTC)
 * Personally, I like the different colours for the two usergroups. Although the features are basically the same, they still are two different positions. I don't think that the different colours would make anyone believe that bureaucrats are "above" admins or anything, but instead just to properly distinguish the groups. So, I don't support having the two colours be the same. I could support just changing the colours so they're more similar to each other or something (like dark red vs. plain red or something, idk) though. -- Bleeh (talk) (blog) 19:03, July 27, 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Bleeh, but I have to disagree with what you said about people thinking that bureaucrats are above admins! When I first arrived, I did think that bureaucrats were above admins, partly from the name colours, and partly from what I read somewhere (I can't exactly recall where). Now I know that they aren't really that different from each other, but at the start there I definitely thought that bureaucrats were considered way more experienced and trusted.


 * Anyways, I'd support a colour change, and I like Bleeh's idea of the same colour, just one darker than the other or something like that! I also support the removal of the VSTF and Wikia Staff colours. ~ Waikikamukow  ( Anyone wanna chat? ) 11:29, July 28, 2013 (UTC)
 * Also indifferent, sharing the opinion with Nikel. MILK FOR THE UNYUUFEX, FLAT CHEST FOR THE CUTENESS THRONE, SKULLS FOR THE SKULL PROBES  (user talk:Mathetesalexandrou) 04:35, July 29, 2013 (UTC)

Ok, so after eight people have weighed in, we have 4 in support of eliminating a color difference, two in favor of making the colors similar but not identical, and two who don't really care.

Personally, I think adopting the 'similar but not identical' color scheme is a good compromise. If we make the colors similar it could help to mitigate a lot of confusion while still keeping the highlight there.

Here's an example of the coloring I'm thinking of:

Current Bureaucrat Proposed Administrator

Thoughts? --  LostInRiverview talk ~ blog 05:42, July 29, 2013 (UTC)
 *   Also, the removal of colors for Staff, VSTF, etc seems to have support, so those changes can probably be implemented immediately. --  LostInRiverview talk ~ blog 05:43, July 29, 2013 (UTC)
 * This could work, I feel that the community could easily adjust to the colour change quite quickly. On a more personal note, I am a big fan of the proposed colour for Administrator names. <font color="#6B1D51">Beds (<font color="#512d17">parlare - <font color="#512d17">da leggere ) 15:09, July 29, 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that will work. Dharden (talk) 15:07, July 30, 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I'm going to go ahead and implement these changes. Expect to see it live shortly. --  LostInRiverview talk ~ blog 23:59, August 3, 2013 (UTC)

174.50.126.43
The IP hasn't exactly acquired a record of making constructive edits. I will grant that many of this user's edits have probably stemmed from an excess of well-meaning enthusiasm. Others, such as this one, lead me to question their commitment to reliability. The user has been warned for adding potentially false information, and for violating the unreleased games policy. I have reluctantly concluded that I cannot consider this user to be a reliable editor, even when they are probably well-meaning in their own eyes. Dharden (talk) 13:39, July 30, 2013 (UTC)