The Sims Wiki talk:Admin Portal/resolved discussions 2011

Weekly Facebook page stats (old page)

 * Split off of a discussion above - the above discussion has mostly ended.

The Sims Wiki
 * 69 monthly active users 4 since last week
 * 89 people like this 10 since last week
 * 1 wall post or comment this week 1 since last week
 * 113 visits this week 54 since last week

--a_morris (talk) 22:03, October 12, 2010 (UTC)


 * 82 monthly active users 15 since last week
 * 124 people like this 19 since last week
 * 4 wall posts and comments this week 4 since last week
 * 92 visits this week 30 since last week

--a_morris (talk) 22:22, October 25, 2010 (UTC)


 * 73 monthly active users down 9 since last week
 * 133 people like this up 9 since last week
 * 7 wall posts and comments this week up 3 since last week
 * 42 visits this week down 50 since last week

--a_morris (talk) 22:26, November 2, 2010 (UTC)

November 8, 2010


 * 71 monthly active users (down) 2 since last week
 * 140 people like this (up) 7 since last week
 * 0 wall posts and comments this week (down) 7 since last week
 * 37 visits this week (down) 5 since last week

November 15, 2010
 * 65 monthly active users (down) 6 since last week
 * 149 people like this (up) 9 since last week
 * 0 wall posts and comments this week no change since last week
 * 30 visits this week (down) 7 since last week

--a_morris (talk) 21:53, November 22, 2010 (UTC)


 * 79 monthly active users up 14 since last week
 * 153 people like this up 4 since last week
 * 1 wall post or comment this week up 1 since last week
 * 46 visits this week up 16 since last week

--a_morris (talk) 22:10, November 22, 2010 (UTC)


 * 98 monthly active users up 19 since last week
 * 161 people like this up 8 since last week
 * 1 wall post or comment this week no change since last week
 * 71 visits this week up 25 since last week

--a_morris (talk) 21:52, November 29, 2010 (UTC)


 * 109 monthly active users up 11 since last week
 * 173 people like this up 12 since last week
 * 2 wall posts and comments this week up 1 since last week
 * 47 visits this week down 24 since last week

--a_morris (talk) 22:02, December 6, 2010 (UTC)


 * 112 monthly active users up 3 since last week
 * 178 people like this up 5 since last week
 * 2 wall posts and comments this week no change since last week
 * 42 visits this week down 5 since last week

--a_morris (talk) 21:43, December 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * 113 monthly active users up 1 since last week
 * 183 people like this up 5 since last week
 * 1 wall post or comment this week down 1 since last week
 * 71 visits this week up 29 since last week

--a_morris (talk) 22:06, December 21, 2010 (UTC)

December 27, 2010
 * 113 monthly active users no change since last week
 * 186 people like this up 3 since last week
 * 5 wall posts and comments this week up 4 since last week
 * 45 visits this week down 26 since last week

--a_morris (talk) 00:10, January 1, 2011 (UTC)

January 3, 2011
 * 102 monthly active users down 11 since last week
 * 186 people like this no change since last week
 * 0 wall posts or comments this week down 5 since last week
 * 49 visits this week up 4 since last week

--a_morris (talk) 19:24, January 9, 2011 (UTC)

Vandal IP
I believe that a single person living in or around London, UK has been using multiple IP addresses (specifically 92.27.218.130 and 89.243.165.132) to vandalize here on TSW. The two IPs (both of which have already received blocks for their behavior) are located in the general London area: and have made identical styles of vandalism, consisting of going to articles about Sims and inserting highly incorrect information into the infobox. Examples:.

As a result, I encourage all administrators who notice this variety of vandalism to identify the IP address of the vandal, ascertain where it is located globally (I use this website) and to immediately block any such vandal committing this type of vandalism who is located in or around London. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 22:19, December 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * A new one that was blocked by Dharden - Special:Contributions/92.27.233.96 - which has made the same kind of vandal edits and also lives in London. It's safe to say that all three of these IPs is the same person. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 20:23, December 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * A new one: 92.27.252.185. Considering a range block of all IP addresses from the 92.27.xxx.xxx range, but we'll play things as needed and see how it goes. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 10:18, December 27, 2010 (UTC)

List of vandal IPs
Borrowing a page from Duskey's book, I've made a table:

I will add to it if more IPs show up. Given current pattern, won't necessarily see another similar IP come up for a couple days. It may be that the user's IP address automatically changes every couple days, but who knows? --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 10:32, December 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * Patterns
 * All located in London, UK.
 * Very similar editing style.
 * Repeat many kinds of vandalism (changing caption to 'hi i'm ', use of the word 'inserted,' other factors).
 * Vandal does not immediately return after being blocked.
 * Targets both well-known and more obscure Sims (more obscure being Camilla Fortescue, Beau Merik and Polly Maloney, among others).

New IPs
A new range of IP addresses; 2.102.xx.xx ; has been participating in the same pattern of vandalism. However, this range has also taken to editing userpages. Here's the table:

Given that this vandalism is generally more annoying than damaging, I don't think this requires much action other than revert, block, ignore. -  LostInRiverview talk · blog 16:11, January 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, the 2.102 IPs are also coming from the UK. WHOIS reports are saying that the 2.102.*.* range and the 92.27.*.* are both on "Opal Telecom", which from my understanding, owns a UK ISP known as TalkTalk. Seeing as the 2.102 range is the only one that is still attacking, there is a chance that this may possibly be the same person, given the similar edits and edit summaries. Also, asking for a rangeblock may be problematic as TalkTalk/Opal Telecom is one of the largest ISPs in the UK, which means hundreds or even thousands of potential editors may be affected. GG   (t)  •  (c)  •  (b)  21:03, February 9, 2011 (UTC)
 * I have blocked 2.102.0.0/16 for a short period of time to prevent the attacks (it seems we can block IP ranges). GG   (t)  •  (c)  •  (b)  21:30, February 9, 2011 (UTC)
 * I've restored the block, but have moved to allow users within that range to register accounts and post on their talk pages. This way, we stop vandalism edits to pages, while still allowing legitimate users to register. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 23:21, February 10, 2011 (UTC)
 * I unblocked the range yesterday to see if the vandal has given up but it appears that they haven't as the vandalism restarted immedieately after the range was unblocked. I have re-blocked the range for 1 week but I have a feeling that this won't be the end of the abuse.  GG  Talk  15:22, March 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * Per a discussion with LiR on IRC, we have decided that the range should be permanently blocked to prevent further abuse. Anyone on this range will be able to create an account in order to minimise collateral damage.  GG  Talk  19:26, March 8, 2011 (UTC)

2.102 vandalism has restarted today and it appears to be the same person as before. I have blocked the range for 6 months but enabled account creation to minimise collateral damage. If the user makes an account (which seems to be unlikely), we can give a permanent block based on their contributions. 16:04, May 12, 2011 (UTC)

New IP range, same ISP
I have noticed another IP, 89.241.53.70 had vandalised Burglar today. A WHOIS shows that this is the same ISP in the UK. I recommend that any user or admin who notices strange edits from this range to act immedieately as this could be the same person somehow changing their dynamic IP range. I have warned the IP for now (in case this is another person) but I will keep an eye out for any IPs in this range or are on this ISP. GG  (t)  •  (c)  •  (b)  16:39, February 10, 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll keep a lookout. Thanks for the heads up.-- ♥DarthCookie♥  17:10, February 10, 2011 (UTC)
 * Any admins/rollbackers may wish to look at the sections above related to the IP problems. Any admin who sees any IP on 89.241.*.* or the IP ranges above causing vandalism should block that IP immediately. Rollbackers should report any suspicious edits to an admin. GG   (t)  •  (c)  •  (b)  20:06, February 10, 2011 (UTC)
 * I think this is jumping the gun severely. The edit made by that IP does not match the style of edits done by either of the two previous IP range vandals. Further, there is no history of repeated vandalism from that IP range. I seriously doubt that this is the same user. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 20:24, February 10, 2011 (UTC)
 * After taking a look at this, I can admit that I was too fast to jump to conclusions. I found it strange that someone from that ISP had vandalised a page after the rangeblock was made. The IP has not been blocked and no further vandalism has been made from that range. GG   (t)  •  (c)  •  (b)  16:07, February 11, 2011 (UTC)

Fanon Wiki merge
''Note: This discussion space is intended mainly for administrators only. Non-administrator comments may be kept or deleted based on length, relevance and content; non-admins posting here should not try to persuade the admins (at this location) but should only state facts relevant to the topic at hand.''

This topic is a sister topic to the discussion occurring here. A separate discussion has been established here with the express purpose of determining whether the administration of TSW will consent to a possible move, if that move has been likewise consented to by the community at-large. With that in mind, this space is now open for administrators to give their opinions and perspectives. -  LostInRiverview talk · blog 04:35, December 22, 2010 (UTC)


 * I was the one who suggested the merge at the Community Portal. I believe that a merge with the Fanon Wiki will be very beneficial to this wiki. For a list of reasons, see the link above. Also, take a look at this. A user named K9underdogg added a story to the Don Lothario/Player stories article. They added many pictures to illustrate their story, and they are already getting their edits reverted. I'm not sure if we have a policy against adding pictures to a player stories article, but if we merged with the Fanon Wiki, K9underdogg could just create a Fanon:Don Lothario article, and write their story in much more depth and detail, along with much more freedom. Thus, a merge with the Fanon Wiki could make this wiki much more productive and friendlier, as users would have the freedom to create a story in an article anyway that they want, without getting their edits reverted. Thank you. :) — Random Ranaun ( Talk to me! ) 05:05, December 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * (O.T.) That particular user story was quite a bit more graphic than most written here... I think that's the reason for its reversion. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 05:26, December 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Still, I believe users should have the freedom of writing their stories (unless it's really graphic, like including nudity and/or sex), and wikia users are supposed to be 13 and up (I think), so they should be mature enough to deal with subjects like those depicted. So, merging with the Fanon Wiki would probably help this situation, as K9underdogg could write their story in a Fanon article, instead of a player stories one, albeit probably warning the warning about its graphic content via a notice at the top. — Random Ranaun ( Talk to me! ) 05:34, December 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * I think a merge would be good because users are always trying to create fanon on here and when they realize they can't make fanon here it seems that they "leave".But, a merge proposal has been done before and the result was not to merge.So,instead of merging maybe make this wiki a place for fanon content too?,For example:The Spore Wiki has content already from the game and user created stuff. Monster2821 talk 07:05, December 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * That is basically what we are trying to do. If we merge with the Fanon Wiki, we would create a Fanon namespace to place the articles, a Fanon portal, to act as a main page for the fanon side of the wiki, and we appoint some Fanon administrators, probably the administrators for the Fanon Wiki. So, if we merge with the Fanon Wiki like this, we would have a place for normal content on the wiki, and a place for fanon content on the wiki. — Random Ranaun ( Talk to me! ) 12:58, December 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * In all fairness, a decision by the community to do or not do something is not permanent and can be re-evaluated from time to time as the wiki's membership and group dynamics change. What earlier may have been unpopular could now receive support, or what was once popular could now be unsupported, and locking the community into a decision like that really takes the power away from them. The vote that happened eight months ago set the guideline... this proposal is an attempt to adjust that guideline, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with the community deciding to do that. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 18:32, December 22, 2010 (UTC)


 * The proposal being discussed in the Community Portal isn't for a merger, but a new namespace, though it might give the Fanon Wiki's content a place to go if a decision to merge is ever made. Dharden (talk) 16:23, December 29, 2010 (UTC)

Community Consensus
Since the time has nearly ended for community consensus on the Fanon Namespace proposal, it's starting to be much more clear how the community feels about the idea, and whether the community has consented to it or not. It's not as simple as a majority; if 51% supports an idea, that's still 49% that don't, and that's a huge minority. In this case, at the time there are 14 persons who have given their opinions, ranging from strong support to strong opposition for the proposal. They fall along these lines:
 * 7 give "strong support"
 * 4 give "support"
 * 0 are neutral
 * 1 gives "opposition"
 * 2 give "strong opposition"

If you go by a simple support/oppose dichotomy, then 11 of 14 persons have shown support for the proposal. When calculated out, that is 78.6% of the community (who have spoken up) in support. But that also means that 21.4% of the community that has spoken up opposes this idea.

If you want to look at it a little harder, and assume the generalization that 'support' is a weaker form of support than 'strong support' (and the same for opposition), then you can give an arbitrary weight to the support and opposition depending on the strength of the opposition or support. If, for example, we treat any support of the proposal as a positive and an opposition as a negative, and give a weight of '1' for support and '2' for strong support, as well as '-1' for opposition and '-2' for strong support, you get this:

(-2*2)+(-1*1)+(0)+(4*1)+(7*2)= +13

It's pretty likely that I'm severely over-analyzing this, but the question still remains; if the numbers remain the same, has the community given consensus or not? Obviously we still have a couple days going, but if nothing really changes, what has the community decided? --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 22:08, January 17, 2011 (UTC)

"Goth Family Leak" Blog
I think we should delete this blog as it claims very questionable information with no proof. I don't think it's right for a user to mislead other users as in that case. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 16:21, November 12, 2010 (UTC)

Layout Builder
Someone here at TSW requested that the Layout Builder be activated, but Wikia has requested that this action be given the thumbs-up from the rest of the administrators. I'm not sure if they plan on shutting it off if we don't respond, so I'd rather we make some decision rather quickly. More information on the Layout Builder can be seen on this blog.

What do you all think about this; should we participate in the test? --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 06:23, January 14, 2011 (UTC)


 * Why not? If it lets us have a standard layout for Sims, another for families/households, another for objects, etc., it'd be useful. Dharden (talk) 16:27, January 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, why not? Besides, if we add on a Fanon Namespace, we could use that as a way to easily create the Fanon content pages. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 18:57, January 14, 2011 (UTC)


 * I think I'm in love! I've done a draft of a family page, check it out. There are some things missing from the dropdown lists, mostly console stuff. --a_morris (talk) 22:57, January 14, 2011 (UTC)

User:FatimaSimovichHleb
Given this user's attitude, behavior, and lack of constructive edits, I don't think she's going to straighten up after a 3-day block -- or at all. While I don't like going straight to an infinite block, I think it may be justified here. Dharden (talk) 19:10, January 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see much hope in improvement here either. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 16:42, January 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * I have the same opinion as LostInRiverview and Dharden. --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 16:44, January 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * Important note: She posted a link to a pornographic picture. -- BobNewbie talk • blog 16:49, January 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, and that's not very constructive at all. --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 16:53, January 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * User is now permanently blocked. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 16:55, January 29, 2011 (UTC)

CheckUser confirmed sockpuppets - admin assistance requested
After seeing in the account creation log, I was suspicious that this user was related to  or. I requested a CheckUser for confirmation.

It appears these users are the same person:



I noticed that Flopflop was used to evade the Smrtgrl888 block and had posted the same block notice on Auror's talk page, whereas Simsgirl2010 has been used for some good faith editing.

I have posted this so that the admins can decide whether or not a block on all of the users is needed - as I can see mixed editing history. GG  (t)  •  (c)  •  (b)  15:53, February 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * Based on past precedent and current guidelines, I would say that a block of these five accounts for sockpuppeting would be appropriate. I'd like some administrator agreement with this before any blocks are made, however. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 15:58, February 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. IMO, using a sock to evade a block is blockworthy, even if the sock doesn't make inappropriate edits. Dharden (talk) 16:55, February 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * All users are now permanently blocked. GG   (t)  •  (c)  •  (b)  19:50, February 1, 2011 (UTC)


 * I have reason to believe that Flopflop is another account of . She logged in on the IRC as Bvbfan1, quit, and rejoined with the account name Flopflop in the Whois. Then, she quit the Bvbfan1 account before changing the other account which was the user Flopflop, blackveilbridefa (BVBfa...), change her name to Bvbfan1. This makes it HIGHLY likely that Flopflop and Bvbfan1 are related accounts. -- BobNewbie talk • blog 19:00, February 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * The Checkuser had never found to be related to, so I'm not sure how we should go about this. My suggestion for now is to monitor Bvbfan1 to see if there are any similarities with the blocked accounts.  GG   (t)  •  (c)  •  (b)  19:55, February 6, 2011 (UTC)


 * As some of us know (Georgie, RR, Auror) she has recently threatened users on the IRC, saying things like she was going to sockpuppet, amongst other things. She also said she was 12, which if I remember right is one of the reasons one of the users above got blocked, which is another point of note though not a big one, as it may not be valid. I know the IRC and wiki is mainly unrelated, though this fuels the idea that Bvbfan1 is a sock. -- BobNewbie talk • blog 21:50, February 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * I have contacted Wikia to see if they can do another check. Before acting, we should wait for them to email me the CU results. GG   (t)  •  (c)  •  (b)  21:54, February 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * The CU has found no relation between and . The CU had also pointed out that Flopflop may have been impersonating bvbfan1, so we should take that into account.  GG   (t)  •  (c)  •  (b)  06:51, February 7, 2011 (UTC)
 * That is very possible. When I asked Bvbfan1 a week or so ago on the IRC to prove that it was her by saying hi on my userpage, she said her mom said she may not edit anymore, though she (the real one) edited yesterday. -- BobNewbie talk • blog 12:40, February 7, 2011 (UTC)

So to wrap things up here - Bvbfan1 is unrelated to Flopflop or any other socks and the CheckUser suggested possible impersonation. *!*@unaffiliated/bvbfan1 was banned from the IRC channel yesterday and all socks are blocked. I guess for now, we'll have to watch the wiki and IRC channel for any trouble, especially those with an unaffiliated cloak (as we have banned a couple of users with those). GG  (t)  •  (c)  •  (b)  16:04, February 7, 2011 (UTC)


 * Yupp. -- BobNewbie talk • blog 17:05, February 7, 2011 (UTC)

User:Bvbfan1 and User:Allison386
I was made aware on IRC by Auror and Random Ranaun that had left the wiki and announced it through [http://sims.wikia.com/wiki/User_blog:Bvbfan1/about_the_sims_wiki...has_A_LOT_2_do_about_sims!!! this blog]. It also seemed that had joined the wiki and had showed some very similar traits to Bvbfan1 (such as the grammar, blogging habits and requests for help with userboxes).

Per this evidence, I had requested a Checkuser who had said that both accounts have used the same IP, same computer, same browser. Here is the response from Wikia:

"I've checked both users and they're both using the same IP, and they both also used the same exact browser. Obviously there is no way to tell if they are definitely the same person, but it looks likely that it was at the very least the same computer, and combined with the behavior of both accounts, you can make a decision on whether they are the same person." - FWIW, Grunny was the CU in this case.

Personally, I think that Bvbfan1 may have created a new account to make the warnings about her behaviour on her talk page seem redundant. Allison has created blogs that have been deleted due to the content (deleted contribs.) and if you compare both userpages, they look alike.

While this isn't as bad as block evasion, I think that a block is needed as this is warning evasion. I'd suggest maybe a permanant block on the Bvbfan1 account and a shorter yet harsh block on the Allison386 account but I would like other administrators opinions before any blocking takes place.  GG  Talk  10:59, March 6, 2011 (UTC)


 * I would like to mention another thing that links both accounts together. On Bvbfan1's page, she says:

i am also a bit lazy and am perfectly happy sitting next to a computer on girlsgogames.com, in which i am called allison386.

That almost 100% proves it further, unless another user picked the name and precise number, which is very unlikely. BobNewbie talk • blog 12:53, March 6, 2011 (UTC)


 * (Caveat: Posting Before Coffee) I can support a permanent block on the Bvbfan1 account. If Bvbfan1 is just shifting to another account, blocking the BVbfan1 account would be appropriate. However, Allison386 is claiming to be new, while the Bvbfan1 account was created on Nov. 18, 2010. So, if they are the same person, and that seems likely, then this could be considered an attempt at sockpuppetry, as well as an attempt to evade warnings. Dharden (talk) 14:44, March 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * I have issued a permanent block on the Bvbfan1 account for now. As for Allison, I have noticed that she has left hit and run "hello" messages on a few talk pages. I think a short block, if not longer, may be appropriate for Allison but again, I would like another administrator to voice their opinion on blocking Allison.  GG  Talk  14:59, March 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, this edit confirms that there is some kind of relation, regardless of Checkuser evidence, which has proven that they have used the same computer.  GG  Talk  15:05, March 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * Followed by IRC consenseus in regards to the block period, I have decided to block Allison for 3 weeks and giver her a final warning. Any accounts she creates in this time should be blocked in addition to her main account permanently.  GG  Talk  06:51, March 7, 2011 (UTC)
 * As I had to hurry off earlier, I forgot to add suggestions on what to do if she makes another account. Users: If you suspect any account of being related to these 2 users through behavioural evidence, report it to an admin. Admins: Before requesting Checkuser, look at the behavioural evidence, if they behave exactly the same, then they probably are the same. If you are unsure, try asking another admin for a second opionon. If after that you are still unsure, feel free to request a Checkuser. Feel free to contact me if you need any help/guidance with this issue.  GG  Talk  15:54, March 7, 2011 (UTC)

User:Simul8or
has done very little to improve the wiki. His contributions range from spamming to falsely accusing admins of abuse. Currently, Simul8or is under a one week block but I doubt he'll improve much when his block expires, as according to BobNewbie, Simul8or allegedly spammed TSW's Facebook page.

Before any false accusations come in about being a sock, I insist that you compare the contributions as the latter does seem to be working hard to improve the wiki and I highly doubt that s/he is the same user as Simul8or. I suggest that we only take action if The SIMulator starts to act like Simul8or.

Back to Simul8or, I personally think that we should permanently block him as he has done very little good and seems to be continuing to cause trouble via community features that are based off-wiki. 19:54, May 7, 2011 (UTC)
 * Give Simul8or a final warning, and if they set a toe out of line, issue a permanent ban. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 20:13, May 7, 2011 (UTC)
 * (added) I do want to make sure that it's clear - criticism of administrators/bureaucrats is OK. However, unfounded criticism is not, which is what this user has been doing. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 20:14, May 7, 2011 (UTC)
 * I doubt that Simul8or had any reason for being here other than trolling and causing trouble. IMO, if they haven't already earned a permanent block, they've earned a final warning. Dharden (talk) 20:40, May 7, 2011 (UTC)
 * I definitely agree with Dharden. A final warning or a ban is a good option. --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 20:43, May 7, 2011 (UTC)
 * Simul8or has recieved his last warning. Anything after that will go to a permanent block. 22:12, May 7, 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll give notice here if he makes another unfounded comment about Wiki admins on our Facebook page. Zombie talk •  blog 08:17, May 8, 2011 (UTC)

Usage of real life images in fanon
Today, I had deleted many images uploaded by which were used on Fanon:The Applewhites. The images were a possible invasion of privacy and were in fact removed from the page by the author not long after he had added them. He never tagged the images for deletion, so I had deleted them as they were being used like the wiki was an image hosting site. I had blocked the user for this but then realised that this wasn't a rule, so I undid the block.

The reason I am bringing this up is - should we have a rule about uploading real life images to the wiki for usage in fanon? Personally I would say no as it can breach the privacy of other people and the fanon namespace is suppossed to be about Sims fanon anyway and having those images would be like image hosting. I would like other administrators to voice their opinions on this.  GG  Talk  17:23, February 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll copy this over to The Sims Wiki talk:Fanon Portal for community discussion. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 17:28, February 26, 2011 (UTC)

Return of the Digimon spam
The spammer's IP was 118.137.75.47, and the articles spammed were Hunger and The Sims 3: Late Night. Edits were reverted and IP was given a 1-day block. Dharden (talk) 13:39, March 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * The Whois data tells me the basic information for this IP. I urge admins and rollbackers to look out for IPs on the 118.137.*.* range and any other ranges that they have a suspicion on (as the 2.102 user managed to change ranges).  GG  Talk  15:51, March 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * Also keep in mind that the previous round of Digimon spam was from 118.137.*.* . Dharden (talk) 16:23, March 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * If need be, we can assign a range block if the situation worsens (it seems that administators can set range blocks without contacting Wikia staff).  GG  Talk  17:52, March 2, 2011 (UTC)

It's back again. 118.137.18.146 spammed Vampire (The Sims 3). Edit has been reverted, and the IP had been blocked for one week. Dharden (talk) 14:31, June 20, 2011 (UTC)
 * From what I've seen, this looks like an attacker who will come here once, get blocked and not appear for a while, thinking that we'll forget. I'd advise everyone to look out for the 118.137.*.* range and any suspicious edits they make. 15:38, June 20, 2011 (UTC)

Possible socks
I have some reasons to believe that the users CrazyCrazy555 and Simcrazy246 are related. Both have joined on similar times, both have Crazy in their names, and SimCrazy has left a message containing:

"Its simcrazy246 by the way whats a fanon? i don't know 'cause im new!"

That seems a lot like s/he is trying to convince the community. They both only make fanon (which are all of low-quality) and upload completely off-topic images at times.

So far, nothing bad has been done, though I would like to ask any admins to ask for checkuser via Special:Contact if one of these accounts commit vandalism, spam, or anything of those sorts. Thanks. -- Zombie talk • blog 18:22, April 7, 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll contact Wikia now. I'll post the results when I get a reply. 19:45, April 7, 2011 (UTC)
 * According to the checkuser, neither of the accounts have shared any IP addresses. It has not been said if any proxies are in use or if the owner has changed IPs every time they wish to use an alternate account. For now, I can't see any action to be taken but if another administrator wants to do something regarding this situation, then it's their choice. 14:05, April 8, 2011 (UTC)

I know I'm bumping this but an IRC user named had appeared to be on the same IP range as CC555 and had some very similar traits. Uberfuzzy has confirmed that they are on the same computer. RothGoth has been permanently blocked while 92.12.0.0/16 has been blocked for a month. 21:32, May 8, 2011 (UTC)

Bureaucrat absence
I will be inactive or semi-active for an indeterminate amount of time, not to exceed the rest of my school semester (May 14, 2011). This is due to my job, involvements and academics, which are consuming most of my time on a daily basis. I may stop by on weekends, but I may also choose just to sleep :p. If you need help from an administrator or bureaucrat, please contact a more active administrator while I am gone. Thanks for understanding. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 05:55, April 8, 2011 (UTC)

User:Riestorar
I have blocked for a week for their contributions and deleted contributions. I'm now starting to think that one week was too generous and I don't think that this user is going to show much in terms of improvement. Before I extend the block, I would like the opinions of other administrators. 20:58, April 15, 2011 (UTC)
 * And I have just removed the ability for this user to edit their talk page after pointlessly abusing that privalige. 21:22, April 15, 2011 (UTC)
 * I think a second oppurtunity could be given, though I don't think it will result, but at least we could try. If they keep their behaviour like this, a ban would be the best option. Also they're create too much blogs, and seems like spam, in my opinion, all of them should be deleted. Thank you. --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 21:24, April 15, 2011 (UTC)
 * Although, a harsh block could be already issued for spamming, profanity, personal attacks. Thank you. --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 21:35, April 15, 2011 (UTC)
 * I think what A_morris mentioned here about editing restrictions may be a good idea for this guy so we can work to prevent further abuse from this user. We could restrict him to a certain number of forum edits per week or restrict him from using the forums completely. 21:50, April 15, 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a good suggestion. Thank you --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 21:56, April 15, 2011 (UTC)
 * This guy has just made a sockpuppet, which warrants a permanent block for both accounts. 17:33, April 16, 2011 (UTC)

User: Meep_sheep

 * Note; user name listed here triggers a false positive on Wikia's spam filter. Have added underscores to the name to bypass the spam filter. The remainder of the message is unchanged.

There has been a vandal known as meep_sheep going around wikia and uploading pornographic images to the background. As a precaution, both Meep_Sheep and .Meep_.sheep. have received permanent blocks, after discussion on the matter on the IRC. They have also used names such as MeepS and Peehspeem, so please be cautious around users with a name resembling any of the names above. In the meantime, VSTF has been contacted and the accounts are being disabled across wikia. See this blog on iCarly wiki for more information. --W H  (Talk) 05:42, May 15, 2011 (UTC)
 * Similar to that case with the guy impersonating an admin on the Mass Effect Wiki. I'm sure VSTF would have blocked their IP range across Wikia for a little while but we should still keep an eye out. 10:37, May 15, 2011 (UTC)
 * I have heard that VSTF has caught up with this user, bu they have struck before. For now, this issue is over, but we should keep an eye out. --W H  (Talk) 01:38, May 22, 2011 (UTC)

83.149.0.0/16
Various IPs on this range have been causing issues on this wiki recently, mainly related to creating inappropriate pages and vandalising fanon made by KnucklesTheSim. The range is currently blocked for two weeks to try and stop this issue. I urge any user who notices any nonsense from this range to report it while admins shouldn't hesitate to give out a longer rangeblock. 18:11, May 27, 2011 (UTC)

User:Thecutofmyjib
I have blocked for their contributions, particulary for the userpage vandalism. Based on their remaining contributions and their deleted contributions, I doubt that we're going to see much, if any improvement in this user. Before a permanent block is issued, I would like to know what other administrators think. 22:11, June 2, 2011 (UTC)


 * I think this user rates a permanent block. Dharden (talk) 02:15, June 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. --W H  (Talk) 05:05, June 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * Thecutofmyjib has made no constructive contributions at all and has been given a permanent block. 09:56, June 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with this decision, though I do think that some admins had a negative behaviour towards them seeing some of the blog comments in one of his spam made blogs instead of deleting it as spam, I personally think we could handle it better if we avoid hostility. Thank you. --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 16:47, June 3, 2011 (UTC)

User:Ĺаncer1289
There has been an issue with. They have spammed many templates to direct users to the Mass Effect Wiki. It appears to be an imposter of this user, as you'll notice the different starting character on the TSW version of this user. A different user has done the same thing on the Motorstorm Wiki, so it's very likely that they're connected. I have reported this to VSTF but I insist that we look out for users who are spamming links to other wikis, particulary the Mass Effect Wiki. 10:56, April 30, 2011 (UTC)
 * Note to all admins: If you see the real Lancer1289 (without the weird L character) on this wiki, do not block him as he is not the same user. 11:02, April 30, 2011 (UTC)

User:Tunrettopyrrah
This user was at first using the account, User:Not my daughter you bitch!, which I blocked for an inappropriate username. They then used the account User:Tunrettopyrrah to vandalise my userpages. I have given them a two week block. --W H  (Talk) 09:20, June 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * Alright. In the future, note that you don't need to worry about reporting every block you make. Just make sure you write up an adequate block summary, and you're ok. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 11:28, June 4, 2011 (UTC)

User:C-Star123
]I have noticed that was given another block today for vandalism. Looking through their contributions, I have very little doubt that this user will improve their behaviour, as all they seem to be here for is to vandalise. I think that a permanent block is a good option here but I would like to hear what other administrators think first. 22:22, June 16, 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree that a permanent block is in order for this user, and have issued one. Dharden (talk) 23:12, June 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * I also agree. --W H  (Talk) 05:02, June 17, 2011 (UTC)
 * I also think there's no other way around. Guilherme Guerreiro [[File:Thanks rose.png]]( talk here ) 13:11, June 17, 2011 (UTC)
 * They were clearly here only to vandalise and do nothing constructive, hence the permanent block. 13:19, June 17, 2011 (UTC)

Meadowview
has created mainspace articles about this neighborhood, which Sumaes01 reports is downloadable from Mod The Sims. Therefore, it doesn't belong in the mainspace, but what should be done with it -- delete or move to the Fanon namespace? Dharden (talk) 02:44, June 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, it would be hard to manage as a fanon, as the person who created it wouldn't be the owner of the article. I have seen one article about a downloaded neighborhood in the fanon namespace, but that was ade by the person who created the content. Personally, I think that it should be deleted. --<font face="Trebuchet MS" color="black">W H  (Talk) 04:58, June 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not opposed to the deletion. 06:09, June 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * It doesn't really belong anywhere, honestly. If the creator of the neighborhood had created it, that would be a different story, but presently it looks as if deletion might be the answer. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 10:38, June 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * I have moved the article to the fanon namespace, is that a negative solution? Thank you. -- Guilherme Guerreiro [[File:Thanks rose.png]]( talk here ) 10:40, June 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with LiR. I understand that the move to the fanon namespace was in good faith but the page wasn't made by the creator of the neighborhood. I wouldn't mind if it had stayed if that was the case but it isn't. I still support the deletion but I'd rather wait for further input regarding the move. 11:04, June 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * Now I understand what happened, since it's not their creation, I also support the deletion of the page and related ones. -- Guilherme Guerreiro [[File:Thanks rose.png]]( talk here ) 11:06, June 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * As I have seen no opposition, I have deleted the article. 11:10, June 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * What about its related articles? -- Guilherme Guerreiro [[File:Thanks rose.png]]( talk here ) 11:15, June 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * I have deleted them. Dharden (talk) 12:20, June 27, 2011 (UTC)

In a note on my talk page, Limegreen5 says that they did create Meadowview. I have invited them to come here and make a case for restoring the articles. Dharden (talk) 12:28, June 27, 2011 (UTC)

Dear Everyone,

I did create Meadowview I made it on my Sims 2 game. It is not on Mod The Sims but I've been doing research and thinking of making it a downloadible neighborhood.I'm sorry I put it on the Sims Wiki Main Page because I am new to The Sims Wiki so I thought it was okay to do that. If I get the restored pages back then I will change it to Fanon: Meadowview, also I will change all its characters to Fanon:(whatever name they have). The reason I want the pages I made back is because I worked very hard on them and I like writing about the sims I create as well as I like reading about other sims people create. If you guys find my writing anywhere near persuasive it would be very kind of you to restore the articles that I have made. Thank You and have a pleasant day.

limegree5 13:12, June 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * Assuming this is true, the pages could be re-created. -- Guilherme Guerreiro [[File:Thanks rose.png]]( talk here ) 13:22, June 27, 2011 (UTC)


 * Agreed. The deletion was done on the assumption that Limegreen5 is not the creator of Meadowview. If that is assumption is wrong, then the articles can be restored. Dharden (talk) 13:29, June 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * I have restored the pages after seeing no opposition to it's restoration, and after reading the comments. --<font face="Trebuchet MS" color="black">W H  (Talk) 04:31, June 28, 2011 (UTC)

IPs spam commenting fanon
I have seen two cases of spam on Fanon:Quinn King, which usually shows some gibberish, non-existant code and a fake website link. One sample showed "NATSc9 <a href="http://vziwwwgfpdar.com/">vziwwwgfpdar</a>". Both and  have had their comments deleted and have been warned. Both of the IPs are from two different locations and whatismyipaddress.com shows that neither of them are proxies, although they may not be announced as proxies. I'd advise everyone to watch out for this kind of spam on fanon articles, particulary Fanon:Quinn King. 13:36, July 4, 2011 (UTC)

User:Marandram and User:Hiola
Several users had voiced concerns on the IRC channel about these two users and their similarities. We felt that we should ask a Checkuser for their opinion and the check said that and  are indeed related.

The issue here is that they have both voiced support for this discussion, which Hiola proposed. Given the vote stacking that is going on here, I feel that the "Fork discussion" should be null and void, as it seems to be an attempt to try and get TSW to leave Wikia with sockpuppets being used in the oppositions favor, with long-term members of the community opposing the proposal.

As far as blocking comes, I would like to propose a permanent block on Hiola and a shorter block on Marandram, as this is the main account, and another admin can feel free to suggest a length for that. Before anything happens, I would like some input from other administrators. 07:33, July 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. I feel we should block the sock for infinite, and the main account for one month. --<font face="Trebuchet MS" color="black">W H  (talk) 07:35, July 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * I was thinking in the same area for the block. As for closing this, I think that the decision should be left to a bureaucrat, seeing as it was LiR that started the vote in order to gain consenseus. 07:44, July 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * I am also inclined to feel that the discussion should be null, moreover I felt that was more like advertising than an attempt to improve The Sims Wiki. As for the blocks, I agree with a permanent block on the sock and a shorter on the the main account. Thank you! -- Guilherme Guerreiro [[File:Thanks rose.png]]( talk here ) 10:08, July 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * The blocks have been handed out. Pending a bureaucrat to decide whether to terminate the discussion on the community portal or not. 10:41, July 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * I am inclined to think that it should be declared null. The discussion appears to be an attempt to promote this "igwn" and encourage us to become part of it. Gboyers was polite about it, but the comments on his talk page from "Mr. User", who appears to Marandram/Hiola, seem to support this conclusion. Dharden (talk) 13:49, July 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * At the very least, the vote from Hiola should be removed, given that this user has been blocked as a sockpuppet. Dharden (talk) 13:59, July 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * ETA: This from "Mr. User" indicates that they made a Wikia account for the express purpose of encouraging us to move. This person may seriously believe that that would be in our best interests, but (IMO) that comment does not foster the appearance that the discussion was started in good faith. Dharden (talk) 14:30, July 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * In addition to the above discovery over the creation of a Wikia account, I am of the conclusion that this whole thing was to advertise "igwn" and from looking around Grand Theft Wiki, it seems that Marandram/Hiola wants to have ownership of this wiki. I am in full support of declaring the discussion as null. Regardless of the socking incident, it has recieved an overwhelmingly negative response from the community anyway. 14:34, July 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * FWIW, It seems that Mr. User/Marandram/Hiola is planning to make a copy of this wiki, whether we fork or not. 18:26, July 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * Dear God, really? What seemed as a small missunderstanding turned out to be this! Yummy! 18:32, July 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * What can we -- or can Wikia -- do about this? Dharden (talk) 18:37, July 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I'm not really sure. I will however send a contact to Wikia alerting them of this issue to see if they are able to intervene in a way. 18:41, July 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * Go for it. As far as I'm concerned, this has put paid to any thought that the discussion was started in good faith. Dharden (talk) 18:45, July 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * Sent in the request. Wikia usually reply faster to the more important stuff, I just pray they can help us... 19:03, July 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I hope they can. FWIW, in this thread Gboyers did caution Mr. User/Marandram/Hiola against making a copy if the community here doesn't want to move. For the time being, I will assume that he is acting in good faith, and intends to respect our decision. Dharden (talk) 19:12, July 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * It also seems that the desired domain name that Mandaram wanted, TheSimsWiki.com, has been registered (EDIT: it seemed to have been registered in October 2010, which was when Oasis was made mandatory, so it may or may not be for the "cloned TSW"). FWIW, it was traced to 173.192.173.35, which is a server IP. Until we get a response from Wikia, I'd urge users to keep an eye on the two talk pages at Grand Theft Wiki and note down anything suspicious. 19:16, July 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * Gboyers has responded on Mr. User's talk page on Grand Theft Wiki. As far as I'm concerned, this is the money quote: "Don't try to take over, steal, copy or manipulate others' wikis for your own benefit." Dharden (talk) 19:32, July 13, 2011 (UTC)

This is getting pretty serious. I'm pretty sure from what has been said that Gboyers is acting in good faith, but this Mr.User/Hiola/Marandram guy doesn't seem to be, or at least wants some form of control over TSW. It could also be notable that Marandram had another account, which he abandoned as he wanted a rename of it. The account is located here. It could be worth mentioning he wrote on this page he retired from another wiki due to horrible policies.

Also, regarding his move to make a copy TSW, I feel that we should increase his block, prefferably to permanent, if he ends up doing this. ~> ฬ ђ  (tคlк ★  ς๏ภtгเ๒ร) 23:22, July 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * As of this moment, Wikia haven't replied yet and according to Special:Statistics, someone has requested a database dump. I've heard that the database dumps are human controlled rather than by a bot, so there is a chance that Wikia can block the database dump. In regards to upping the block, I'm not opposed to it but I feel that we should continue to monitor this situation carefully and see if Wikia Staff wish to intervene with this. 14:35, July 14, 2011 (UTC)

I have recieved a response from Sannse.

Hi Georgie

''All text on Wikia is under a free license, the Creative Commons-by-sa license. This means that it is possible for anyone to reuse the content, as long as they properly attribute the source, and keep the content (and any additions to the content) under the same license.''

''But, that said, I don't think there is much to worry about here. You have the advantage of secure hosting, stable servers, good Google results... and the community to keep growing your wiki. The chances of his fork being so successful are remote, especially as it seems he doesn't have the technical knowledge to run a wiki. The best way for you to counter his attempt to fork is to continue to edit and make your wiki the most active and the best possible :)''

The Sims Wiki is a strong and successful one, so just keep doing what you are doing!

Best wishes

-- sannse

Based on this, I feel that we shouldn't worry too much, as the mirror site would have to credit us anyway in additon to the little technical knowledge that Marandram has, and that we continute to build on the wiki as normal. 23:57, July 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm still very concerned about this. And from what I I acn understand wikia won't do much for now regarding this. But we should all keep an eye on Mr. User and watch them, so that we can report any action we see as hurtful for us. I recommend everyone to stay attent.-- Guilherme Guerreiro [[File:Thanks rose.png]]( talk here ) 00:03, July 15, 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see how we can be that worried about this, for now. I doubt Mr.User has the skill for wiki design and running, and, as sannse said, we are a strong site and probably won't be affected that much. ~> ฬ ђ  (tคlк ★  ς๏ภtгเ๒ร) 00:19, July 15, 2011 (UTC)
 * And Sannse is trustworthy when it comes to things like this, so it's probably best to get back to running the wiki how we usually do. 00:31, July 15, 2011 (UTC)

Four checkuser confirmed possible sockpuppets...
After a discussion on IRC, we thought a user was related to, a serial sockpuppet. However, the email I recieved said,

Hi Georgie,

''Thanks for contacting Wikia. I can't find any relation between Yummy! and CrazyCrazy555 (doesn't mean they aren't the same person), however, Yummy! seems to share at least one IP, along with the same browser and operating system, as four other users:''


 * IlikeSims
 * TheNewMe
 * TheSims2Fan
 * Vss2eip

This could be a shared IP, however, so I'd suggest looking at their editing behavior for similarities.

I hope that helps, and feel free to let us know if you need anything else.

Cheers, Grunny

I do remember that said to me via Wikia Chat that he and  were "neighbors", so there may or may not be an exception here. I have however noticed some very similar behavior between Yummy!, and, particulary in regards to asking users to go to Chat via their talkpages and the things they both say on Chat.

I would like some input from other administrators on this issue before any action is taken. The users envolved may add their input in the allocated section below, while another section will be used for admin/bureaucrat input. 15:25, July 15, 2011 (UTC)

Admins and Bureaucrats only
I have recieved an explanation here from Vss2eip. 15:21, July 15, 2011 (UTC)
 * Sincery, I think all these users share the same behavior, same way of talking and even grammar. Some of which appeared to even flatter the admins in random ways and all in the same way. But I don't know if this enough to consider all of them sockpuppets. -- Guilherme Guerreiro [[File:Thanks rose.png]]( talk here ) 15:29, July 15, 2011 (UTC)
 * FWIW, none of the accused seem to edit or show up in Chat at the same time. Given that Yummy! is allegedly the neighbor of Vss2eip, you would think that she would be around at the same time (as using someone else's wireless router is a very common way of getting onto their connection) unless they're editing from the same computer. I would like some views on whether to warn/block the involved and if anyone is to be blocked, for how long. 15:36, July 15, 2011 (UTC)
 * I also noticed they didn't show up at the same time, and according to the evidence I think they are all the same, as they may belong to a permanently blocked user we should warn them, if they are the same person we should apply what we always do - permanently block the socks. -- Guilherme Guerreiro [[File:Thanks rose.png]]( talk here ) 15:39, July 15, 2011 (UTC)
 * I remember once that Nikel23 informed me that Vss2eip had used vote stacking in the Battles, and Nikel warned them about it. Vss2eip replied by saying that their brother made one of the votes, and they would advise their brother to make a new account. One of these accounts could be Vss2eip's brother. However, I have noticed some of the behavior is a bit suspicious between these users. ~> ฬ ђ  (tคlк ★  ς๏ภtгเ๒ร) 22:39, July 15, 2011 (UTC)
 * Based on what I have seen so far, I can accept that Vss2eip is a possible execption to this and TheNewMe may indeed be his brother. I've noticed that none of the other accused accounts have been active since this was posted, so I'm not sure if they're fleeing to avoid trouble or something. 09:53, July 16, 2011 (UTC)

83.149.0.0/16 again
It looks like troubles with the 83.149 ip range are continuing on. When I was looking through the deletion log, I noticed this ip range had made another inappropriate page, which was deleted. Most of their contributions are either spamming russian links and inserting nonsense into pages, in particular about sims like "Prof. Jenny". I have had to block the entire ip range for one month as I honestly see no way that this user will go away. For reference, check this page for their block log, and I urge all administrators to not be hesitant in handing out blocks to 83.143 ip's, or any users with similar editing behaviour. ~> ฬ ђ  (tคlк ★  ς๏ภtгเ๒ร) 02:12, July 27, 2011 (UTC)

CookieMonster888
There's been serious talk on the IRC about Monster's activity as an admin, and how much he really deserves it. Multiple reasons include lack of maturity, constant cry for bureaucrat rights, among others. Some users have expressed concern and wish for his rights to be removed. Is it possible that a vote could be in order? Ѧüя◎ґ 19:24, August 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, he doesn't deserve adminship any longer, due to the reasons Auror has mentioned, besides his inactivity on the wikia. His behavior is not very appropriate for an admin as well, and even further from a bureaucrat. I didn't want to hurt feelings, but I think he's just not capable of having his adminship rights remain. I don't know, maybe the solution is warning him, I personally wouldn't immediately revoke his admin rights. -- Guilherme Guerreiro [[File:Thanks rose.png]] ( talk here ) 19:33, August 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * Unless you could cite those reasons specifically, I would say that this is out of line. It's certainly not a vote-worthy idea, in any case. In any event, such accusations are best done through e-mail contact with a bureaucrat. This is a link to email me if you want to pursue this further; if you don't want to, then I don't want to see any commentary about revoking admin rights on this or any other page on the wiki. The discussion on this page is closed. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 21:49, August 2, 2011 (UTC)

Spam blogs
Recently I have noticed spam blogs being written here and on a few other wikis by random users, most notably and. The blogs seem to be of a random topic (which changes after each blog). Recently, I have also heard rumors of attacks on random wikis by outside groups (notably 4chan), so I'm unsure if this is related or not. Whether or not the two users in question are related is another thing but it probably isn't worth looking into for the time being (VSTF will likely catch up with them if they're causing a cross-wiki disturbance).

If anyone sees a blog that is completely unrelated to the wiki and is of a random subject, report/delete the blog immediately and hand out a short term block for spam, as it is likely that a) they may be part of a recruitment which only intends to spam, b) they may be the same person and c) they are too impatient to return after a short block (which was the case with Abenbrown). 21:06, September 8, 2011 (UTC)

User:173.89.22.6
This user is keep inserting a false information on many article even after being blocked. Last time GG blocked this user for 3 days and after GG block is over on 16 august 2011 that user to insert false information on 17 and 28 august on many article, now i have blocked that user for 1 week. can we block that user more longer? even permanent if possible? because, if I see on the history im sure that that user don't have any good faith to this wiki and will continue again after the block ended. --Wir.wiryawan 15:00, September 10, 2011 (UTC)
 * It's possible to block him longer, but not possible to block him permanently, wikia doesn't allow IPs to be permanently blocked. -- RoseGui [[File:Thanks rose.png]] ( talk here ) 16:15, September 10, 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, Wikia does allow an IP to be permanently blocked but unless the IP is a proxy, permanently blocking an IP is generally frowned upon. This entry on whatismyipaddress.com shows that this is a dynamic IP on Road Runner, which are a relatively large ISP, meaning that a permanent block would be pretty useless as the vandal only has to reset their router. I'd stick with one week for now, hoping that'll get the message across. 16:31, September 10, 2011 (UTC)
 * ok, lets wait until the block has ended. If that user creating a false information again we must block longer then 1 week. i will keep my eye on that user. :) Wir.wiryawan 18:00, September 10, 2011 (UTC)
 * Caught them doing the same thing earlier on my phone, blocked them for a month. 06:54, September 20, 2011 (UTC)
 * i wish its gone for 1 year. because im sure after 1 month its will do the same things again... Wir.wiryawan 07:34, September 20, 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but the block length should escalate gradually. Longer blocks shouldn't be handed out unless absolutely necessary.
 * Even though I don't like using this term when it comes to disruptive users/IPs, we should assume good faith and hope that 1 month will get the message across and they'll go away. Failing that, we should just gradually escalate it rather than go straight to a year. 07:52, September 20, 2011 (UTC)

User:Smiley j
Given their history of vandalism, I am not holding out much hope for this user improving their behavior. Personally, I think we should issue a permanent block, as this user doesn't seem to be here to edit constructively but I would like some further input before anything else happens. 09:14, September 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree.
 * Im agree too, the worst of his vandal is he doing it when the time many user whose usually active here is not on the wiki, so many of his vandal is unreverted until nikel find it 2 week later. if you all agree, I or another admin can change the block to permanent Wir.wiryawan 12:07, September 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree as well. |_<font color="#A60914" size="2px">Andronikos Leventis <font color="#1404A2" size="1.3px">Talk 12:10, September 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * I've changed the block to permanent. 13:23, September 11, 2011 (UTC)

User:Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaach
has done nothing to improve the wiki. They have also uploaded an inappropriate image and vandalized a Scott Chesterfield by blanking it out. If you all agree, me or another admin can issue a permanent block. |_<font color="#A60914" size="2px">Andronikos Leventis <font color="#1404A2" size="1.3px">Talk 15:21, September 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * Even though we should assume that the user will be too impatient to wait out their block or that they will change, I'm not opposed to a permanent block for this user as I doubt they're here to edit constructively anyway. 16:37, September 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, it is too fast if we block that user permanently. but uploading an inappropriate picture is very unacceptable. i suggest that we increase the block up to 1 month and if that user do it again, permanent block can be given to that user. Wir.wiryawan 01:55, September 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not opposed to a permanent block but I feel that one or two weeks would be the best duration.
 * OK, a block increase should not be very bad. I agree with WH about it's duration. |_<font color="#A60914" size="2px">Andronikos Leventis <font color="#1404A2" size="1.3px">Talk 10:02, September 14, 2011 (UTC)\

User:Monstergalaxywiki
has added a (presumably by name) pornographic link in the mainspace. User has been warned for now. The edit can be found here. I strongly insist on perma-blocking the user. He has also done nothing to improve the wiki.|_<font type="Calibri" color="#A60914" size="2px">Andronikos Leventis <font type="Calibri" color="#1404A2" size="1.3px">Talk 18:37, September 30, 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree that a perma-block is appropriate. -- Bob  ๑  18:54, September 30, 2011 (UTC)
 * I was about to note that a permanent block may be too early at this point but after looking at this, I think this could be a cross-wiki spammer. I wouldn't be opposed to a permanent block on this user and I'll keep an eye on them in case it needs VSTF intervention. 18:56, September 30, 2011 (UTC)
 * Andronikos has permanently blocked MGW. Having noticed this user's edits elsewhere, I've passed on some information to VSTF. 19:16, September 30, 2011 (UTC)

Food spam IPs
Lately, I've noticed that at least 2 IPs have been blocked for creating pages with "I like ", notably, which I blocked for 2 weeks under the suspicion that this is a spambot and , which Auror caught today engaging in the same pattern of behavior. Whatismyipaddress.com shows that both of these IPs are based in Sao Paolo, Brazil. I know we've had problems with Brazilian IPs before (like that case with the IP spamming the userpages of administrators), so I'm not ruling out an older vandal just yet but this could be someone different. I'd like to urge any administrator who catches an IP engaging in this type of behavior to issue a block immediately. 17:23, October 3, 2011 (UTC)

Indonesian IP addresses
Today we've had three cases of IP addresses vandalising userpages, in particular that of GeorgieGibbons. I've handed out a range block to 125.163.0.0/16 and 118.98.0.0/16, and 118.97.0.0/16 was blocked earlier today by Georgie. The funny thing is, these ip addresses show up from different places in Indonesia, one in Yogyakarta, one in Langsa and one in Jakarta. Despite this, I feel they are connected in some way due to their very similar vandalism parrtens and appearing close together. In an incident from earlier today one of them used a dynamic ip to change their address, so I wouldn't be surprised if the other two I blocked could do it as well, hence the rangeblock. I'd advise all admins to not hesitate in blocking for an extended period of time.
 * FWIW a few checks on whatismyipaddress.com show them all as proxy servers.
 * Sorry for this quite-unrelated question, but what's proxy server?  Nikel  Talk  07:56, October 8, 2011 (UTC)
 * hi nikel, proxy server is used for anonymous browsing on the internet so another internet user cant detect you where you come from, etc. the proxy server is usually used for bypass any internet restriction, like office firewall, or you know that "menkominfo" restriction blocked some internet address using "nawala". this proxy server is popular in our country because of that blocking rules but sadly some user use it on disruptive way like vandalize this wiki. --Wir.wiryawan 08:39, October 8, 2011 (UTC)
 * Ooh... but who and how do we use proxy server? Where can I use it? Is my computer proxy or not? (Well I sound very much clueless here)  Nikel  Talk  08:57, October 8, 2011 (UTC)\
 * Seeing as they're all proxies, the only thing we can really do is block them as we see them. Eventually, the vandal will probably run out of proxies (as they'd all be blocked) or they would just get bored and quit. 10:22, October 8, 2011 (UTC)
 * I've had it with this. If anymore proxies come up and they all follow the "slut" vandalism pattern, block the IP range for a couple of weeks. For example, if a proxy used 1.2.3.4 then block 1.2.0.0/16. The block list shows a few examples. 20:34, October 10, 2011 (UTC)
 * I've had it with this. If anymore proxies come up and they all follow the "slut" vandalism pattern, block the IP range for a couple of weeks. For example, if a proxy used 1.2.3.4 then block 1.2.0.0/16. The block list shows a few examples. 20:34, October 10, 2011 (UTC)

Another vandalism using proxy
i found this 2 ip address and  is vandalizing woohoo page and they use proxy program: ultrasurf to vandalize the wiki. i found it because i use the same program to connect the wiki, i cant connect the wiki without that program and when i blocked them, the result i blocked my self too. i think this is problem is one packet with indonesian vandalism.

I suggest we do ip range block based on that ip. but please if you block on another ip from that, check at my page and unblock me if im blocked too because im not the one whose vandalize this wiki. Wir.wiryawan 01:41, October 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * I just run some checks on both of the IPs and whatismyipaddress.com doesn't list them as proxies (although they aren't always accurate, so they could be wrong). They are both however both based in two different parts of Connecticut using two different service providers and the same vandalism pattern, meaning it could be a usage of undeclared proxy servers or someone shifting wi-fi hotspot. Given that the Indonesian proxy abuser had used IPs from different locations, there is a chance that the Connecticut abuser is doing the same thing. I'd advise everyone to keep an eye out on the WooHoo page for the same type of vandalism. 17:36, October 11, 2011 (UTC)

User:Sforster123
has made no constructive edits here or anywhere else on Wikia. This edit to my talk page on his wiki shows that he intends to troll (in addition to every other message on my talk page there) after I have told him several times that I'm not interested in a position on his wiki. A VSTF user has left Sforster123 a warning on Community Central for the same kind of harassment.

Here on The Sims Wiki, Sforster has only tried to obtain administrator rights through a variety of different ways, has harassed administrators about the same things over and over again, has ignored several warnings and doesn't seem to have learned from his two blocks issued by BobNewbie and Woganhemlock. The user is currently blocked for a week but based on his cross-wiki contributions, I feel that we should give Sforster123 a permanent block but I would like some thoughts from other administrators first. 14:56, October 13, 2011 (UTC)


 * A permanent block I agree with. This user has been nothing but a problem for both admins and users, here and on several other wikis. A simple scan of their talk page proves many users have warned the user of their actions, and most of these messages are repeated at least twice. Their behavior shows no signs of improving, and since they've been in no way helping the wiki (but rather doing the opposite), I believe that a permanent block should be issued. -- Bob  ๑  15:04, October 13, 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with permanent block, he only create a mess here. start with vandalizing rfa page, change block info on his talk page when still blocked, doesn't want to hear any positive suggestion to change his behavior and improve this wiki, forcing someone to join his wiki, and the last one is harassment to administrators cross-wiki.
 * i see what he do to GG on his wiki, that is only for vengeance because he doesnt get administrator right here. his word to GG is very impolite and unacceptable same like his wiki just full with his ego. if VSTF issue you a global block that will be better. Wir.wiryawan 15:41, October 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * Sforster123 has been permanently blocked. I think it's best if we keep an eye on what he does across Wikia for now and alert VSTF when we catch him engaging in further disruption. 16:01, October 13, 2011 (UTC)


 * I've notified a VSTF member about the user and their actions here, so that this incident will be kept in mind if they need to decide what to do with the user if any more problems arise. For now though I believe most of this has been taken care of (at least on this wiki), and if any users receive harassing or provocative messages on another wiki from this user they should immediately report it. -- Bob  ๑  17:17, October 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with everyone. A permanent block is the best solution. -- RoseGui [[File:Thanks rose.png]] ( talk here ) 17:22, October 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed (even though its probably a bit too late for it to matter :p)

User:ARHicks00
has made numerous trivial edits on several Sim pages. As in "trivial", that user made many inputs on Trivia section, mostly referring to name references or onomatology. However, these trivias can be considered speculative, and might make the article inaccurate any longer. What action should be done to the user's contributions? Should we undo all his actions or keep it with improved details instead?  Nikel  Talk  10:49, November 9, 2011 (UTC)
 * I very appreciated what he do for the wiki, he made a good contribution for this wiki. but for me too many trivia that not related with the game is not good, too many "maybe" on articles at wiki can made the whole wiki articles look like it is inaccurate, even that is in the trivia. Wir.wiryawan 11:58, November 9, 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty puzzled on what to do as some of his "theories" may be true but others may be false - we don't know because it's mostly speculative. I'll leave this to another admin. 21:11, November 9, 2011 (UTC)
 * Rose already cleanup some speculation and i will do the rest. as gg said "theories" may be true but others may be false so it is inaccurate, and inaccurate info is no good for the article because on this wiki we always provide accurate information about this game only. Wir.wiryawan 01:30, November 10, 2011 (UTC)

User:ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
I don't mean to be critical but I think that the permanent block on this user was premature given that they have only made one edit with no deleted contributions. I'm fine with the block being shortened to 3 days with the hope that they may go away but at this stage, I think a permanent block was severely jumping the gun. Thoughts? 10:37, November 13, 2011 (UTC)

Agreed.10:49, November 13, 2011 (UTC)


 * Maybe we should talk auror why she give that user permanent block, because there must be a reason why she give it to that user.
 * but in my personal opinion i agree with auror. even that user only have 1 edit, from that edit and the username i know that that user absolutely 100% have bad faith for this wiki and that user only want to ruin this wiki. so no need to give that user second chance with temporary block because i sure that user will do another vandal when the block was over. Wir.wiryawan 10:57, November 13, 2011 (UTC)


 * If the block is shortened, I would say to make it 1 week, for the combination of blanking a page and use of profanity. On the other hand, when a user does something like that as a first edit, I'm inclined to doubt that they came here with good intentions, so I can understand the impulse to go straight to a permanent block. I also think that if the block is shortened, and the user does come back, any similar infraction should result in a permanent block. Dharden (talk) 13:19, November 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll go with Dharden's suggestion. As a result, the block has been shortened to one week and the user in question has been given a final warning. 13:30, November 13, 2011 (UTC)

IMPORTANT: User change
Due to some issue with my old account, I decided not to use that account anymore. I am Wir wiryawan and now I use this account on this wiki.

This day November 29, 2011 when I login on the wiki I found my account is blocked again, I suspect my account is global blocked because I share the same ip with Indonesian vandal. The vandal use the same program with me: ultrasurf to vandalize wiki. I need ultrasurf program to login the wiki because my old account is facebook connected user and because facebook is blocked in my office, I cant login without using that program.

I create a new account, it is not facebook connected user so I will be free from ultrasurf program and I hope that case not happen again to me. feel free to contact me there. Thank you Wiryawan310 02:09, November 29, 2011 (UTC)


 * I have de-admined and blocked Wir's old account. Dharden (talk) 04:03, November 29, 2011 (UTC)

New year
Hi guys, I have an idea for celebrating this new year. what if we have an "exchange gifts"? We all play the game right, just upload and share your best and beloved sim for everyone on this wiki to download. you can put the download link on your userpage. What do you think?

note: btw is my idea break wiki tos? Wiryawan310 15:24, December 14, 2011 (UTC)


 * Awesome idea! But we need to host the files somewhere. And I doubt Dropbox is a solution for that. And I don't have a sims3.com account (I hate official sites!), so... no exchange for me. But you should put that in the community portal. 16:18, December 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * Copied to a thread on the community portal for further discussion. 19:22, December 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * The further discussion is moved there, I hope, at least admin and bureaucrat can join this "special sim wiki event" if it happen. c'mon, new year is near! lets celebrate in "sim wiki style!" :D Wiryawan310 03:53, December 15, 2011 (UTC)

User:22a5st
, I want to ask your oppinion about that user. is that name acceptable? because for me the word a*s on the middle of the username is not acceptable. Wiryawan310 02:04, December 21, 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see this as problematic mostly because a letter/number combination like that could be saying anything. Plus there are words that do use a somewhat offensive term within them (i.e. harass, association). 11:49, December 21, 2011 (UTC)

User:Jay Guzmán
has been blocked twice for "Inserting false information". The first block was one month ago and no edits were made between then and the most recent block from today and I don't see signs of any change in this user's behaviour. Therefore, I think we may as well consider a permanent block. 17:13, December 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with a permanent block. From the experience we have, it is becoming clear that he will not be here to make constructive edits. -- RoseGui [[File:Thanks rose.png]] ( talk here ) 17:17, December 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not oppose for permanent block but I think giving permanent block now is too soon for user with few edit. I think giving the final warning for that user is fit, 1 more false info after the block released, he gone forever from this wiki. Wiryawan310 17:42, December 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * Seeing as all their 8 edits were false info, I agree. 20:56, December 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * Final warning has been issued. Dharden (talk) 21:33, December 29, 2011 (UTC)

Waikikamukow2
I found a user with similar name and. Waikikamukow2 just created a nonsense blog, write a message on Waikikamukow talk page and create confusion. Based on that, its clear Waikikamukow2 want to troll on this wiki. Waikikamukow send me a message that Waikikamukow2 is not her and for that I block Waikikamukow2 permanently for impersonating another user and trolling. Wiryawan310 03:23, January 5, 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. I'm assuming that its just a random passer-by/troll, and I'm trusting that the user was telling the truth. Any other similar accounts should be blocked on sight.
 * Seems likely. We've had users like that before... 07:42, January 5, 2012 (UTC)
 * Poor her. She's a new user and has recently been active at contributions. Yet, she got faked by a spammer.  Nikel  Talk  14:30, January 5, 2012 (UTC)

Chrissydattilo and Chrissydattilo5
Aside from having almost idential usernames, and  are showing a pattern of the same type of vandalism. Does anyone else smell socks? Dharden (talk) 02:04, December 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, seems pretty obvious so I doubt a checkuser is required in this case. I'd suggest that Chrissydattilo5 is blocked permanently while Chrissydattilo is given a shorter block and a warning. 14:36, December 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. I'd already blocked Chrissydattilo for 3 days, so I left that unchanged and added a warning about socking. Since this user has made no constructive edits, I also warned that continuing to make nonsense or spurious edits could result in a permanent block. Dharden (talk) 16:44, December 2, 2011 (UTC)

Spam from users with only 1 contribution
This user,, have been repeatedly spammed in his user page by three different users, one of which is an anon. These are the spammers in the order of timeline,, , and. I smell something fishy here, because all three of them used spam as the crime, only contributed once, and both usernames have "01" in the end. What should we do to them?  Nikel  Talk  11:59, December 26, 2011 (UTC)


 * Both the Colie01 and Disail01 accounts were created minutes before the spam was committed, and have no other edits. I think a checkuser is in order, as I suspect the accounts may be "throwaways" created for the purpose of spam or other vandalism. I also do not think that a block without warning was entirely inappropriate. They did violate our policy wrt editing other users' userpages and spamming, and the edit by Disail01 was outright spam that did not even pretend to be self-promotion. Dharden (talk) 13:56, December 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah they seem very much alike so I'm in support of someone requesting a CU (assuming someone hasn't already). 14:09, December 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * May I know what checkuser is?  Nikel  Talk  10:29, December 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * An administrator or bureaucrat contacts someone with Wikia and asks them to look at whether two or more users share the same IP address or credentials... basically, it helps admins determine if someone is sock-puppeting or if someone created a new account to get around a block on a wiki. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 16:51, December 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * Here it goes. Another user spammed the page again. . I have no doubt they're sockpuppet. But I still don't know what to do with the checkuser. Can we advance to block them without warning or research?  Nikel  Talk  08:12, December 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * I protect the page to semi-protected to prevent another spam while waiting on CU result. its look like only new generated user spam the page. Wiryawan310 09:46, December 28, 2011 (UTC)

This new user, posting many spam link on his talk page. I suspect he was the same user who create many account spamming page and due to I recently protect James021984 page, he create a new one and post spam there. I block this user for 1 week to prevent posting any spam and I recommend to CU on this user too before the block released. Wiryawan310 10:17, December 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * As I can see, he spammed on his own talkpage, and his username doesn't end with "01". Maybe you should shorten the block to 3 days, until you can find some more evidence. In the meantime, I'll get my eyes on him...  Nikel  Talk  10:36, December 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * Forget what I just said. Another new user, made the same pattern with Chitamark3 by spamming his own talk page. This is a serious condition. Sooner or later, if no action is done, he will create more sockpuppets to spam! Should we block them ALL?  Nikel   Talk  10:40, December 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * that user too... lol Wiryawan310 11:01, December 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * I try to block this ip range 124.253.0.0/16 based on the only ip caught spamming with the same pattern. I hope the spam is stopped. if Im wrong, please unblock it.Wiryawan310 11:10, December 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * For me, it's not the spam that matters. It's the sockpuppetry. I don't know how many more he'll be making. But when it's proved they're all sockpuppets, be sure to block them forever, Wir. ;D  Nikel  Talk  11:12, December 28, 2011 (UTC)

I send a CU request via Special:Contact on this user below Wiryawan310 11:38, December 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * User:James021984
 * User:Colie01
 * User:Disail01
 * User:Chitamark3
 * User:Gillet1
 * User:Gurikora4
 * User:Pscli01
 * User:124.253.94.121
 * Wow...I shouldn't have gone away for too long. :P And Wir did the right thing here so hopefully the Wikia staffer conducting the CU will tell Wir the appropriate IP range (hoping that it's 124.243.0.0/16) and a rangeblock can be put in place (if not already). 13:01, December 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * I already block some account for 1 week and I continue to block all account above that hasn't been blocked yet for 1 week while waiting for CU finished. I think this is the best to prevent any spam return from unblocked account. Each account only have 1 edit and that is the spam, so I doubt they dont have any good faith for this wiki. if I'm wrong, please unblock it. Wiryawan310 15:16, December 28, 2011 (UTC)

I just got an email from Sannse

Sannse Carter Cushway, Dec-28 06:10 pm (UTC):

Hi,

None of the accounts use exactly the same IP, but all are on a common range and have similar email addresses. It seems clear enough that they are the same person.

Other accounts I see on this range are:

Fireuv2 Jholamark3 Misck92 Natha0001 Petic21 Poual1 Sarara7

You may be able to slow this person down by blocking 124.253.88.0/21 - this range covers all their current accounts. Hopefully that block should discourage them.

Regards,

-- sannse

Sannse Carter Cushway Wikia Community Support

They all same person, I already permanently blocked All 14 accounts for excessive spamming and sock puppetry. Ip range 124.253.88.0/21 including 124.253.94.121 has been blocked for 3 month to prevent another spamming like what sannse suggest. That is a lot of block in the same time... lol Wiryawan310 18:34, December 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * 14 accounts? Wow, someone must have a lot of time on their hands. :| 19:21, December 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * The spam returned with user:Hussey98 User:Pontymark after I unblock 124.243.0.0/16, I permanently block and add the block 124.243.0.0/16 again. I recommend all admin here to check any new user created and permanently block if any spam returned. total account blocked so far 16... lol Wiryawan310 05:57, December 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * Just so everyone knows, a /16 rangeblock will block more IPs than a /21. MediaWiki doesn't allow us to block any value lower than a 16 (15, 14 and so on) but in most cases, a /16 block proves the most effective. I'm going to dread the day that Wikia starts supporting IPv6 where we can only issue a /64 block. :S 15:44, December 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * I already requested CU again on that 2 permanently blocked user to get the best range block. I hope Sannse reply my email soon before new year. Wiryawan310 16:07, December 29, 2011 (UTC)

I Just got a reply from Grunny

Grunny, Dec-30 03:02 pm (UTC):

Hi,

I've checked the two new accounts and combining their IPs with the others, and the correct range is 124.253.0.0/16 as it is the only one that encompasses all the IPs they have used. While that is a large range, there are currently no other users in that range apart from those you have blocked.

One thing to consider doing to make sure they are blocked is to change the block settings at http://sims.wikia.com/wiki/Special:Block/124.253.0.0/16 so that the first option "Block IP users only - This allows registered users from the same IP to still edit. To prevent this IP from registering, check the option below as well." is unchecked. This will stop them creating an account at another wiki and then coming to your wiki and vandalising.

I hope that helps, and feel free to let us know if you need anything else.

Cheers, Grunny

Daniel (Grunny) Wikia Community Support Ask a question at http://forums.wikia.com

I will renew the block now Wiryawan310 15:45, December 30, 2011 (UTC)
 * I hope with this, the spammer will stop spamming. Let's wait and see the result in another week. Then we could conclude this issue resolved.  Nikel  Talk  04:02, December 31, 2011 (UTC)
 * The spammer seems to have stopped. Marked as resolved. 08:01, January 10, 2012 (UTC)

User:I is epic u is not
I'm somewhat questioning this username in question, given that, while not as bad as some usernames we've blocked in the past, it can come across as a mild insult. Overall, edits seem to be in good faith (though the user may benefit from a few pointers to help them out). I'm yet to decide on whether I should or shouldn't block for the username and allow the user to create another account to edit. Any suggestions/opinions would be appreciated. 17:59, December 12, 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think it breaks the letter of the policy on usernames, but it bends the spirit. I also don't think there's any "may" about whether this user could benefit from pointers. I'd say not to block, but maybe suggest that this user might want to use a name that's not so "in your face". Dharden (talk) 21:56, December 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd say its borderline. Either way is fine by me.
 * Given that the user does have good intentions, I'll leave this be for now as it's not something serious enough to warrant a speedy block. 18:00, December 13, 2011 (UTC)


 * Gosh,I'm not insulting anyone,i was just stumped thinking of a username.i used this username because i like the word epic,gosh.I is epic u is not 19:46, December 14, 2011 (UTC)


 * I already talk, offer him to create a new account and give some suggestion since he didn't mean to do that. Because I think moving to the new account is the best solution for moving from this "borderline" situation. :) Wiryawan310 03:49, December 15, 2011 (UTC)