The Sims Wiki talk:Admin Portal

TSW on other sites
Moved from the community portal talk

Discussion
Should we register TSW on other sites? I'm thinking facebook and twitter and all that. I'm gonna list some pros and cons:
 * Pros
 * Might attract more visitors.
 * Can help relay info without people visiting the site.
 * Can help relay info without people visiting the site.


 * Cons
 * Shared password.
 * Abuse/vandalism.
 * Inter-admin drama for not gaining access to accounts.
 * Inter-admin drama for not gaining access to accounts.


 * Suggested sites
 * Google Groups (for sharing passwords between admins)
 * Twitter
 * Facebook
 * Youtube

Personally I'm not a facebook man so I can't comment much on that, but I am beginning to see the advantages of Twitter. We could use it to post whenver we put up a blog post which goes in 'The Sims Wiki News' window, this means people following us on Twitter would get an update without having to check the site. It also means people can follow us vis RSS. At the moment our RSS feed is a standard 'recent changes' enabled by default by Wikia. Additionally we can use it for more general Sims 3 news as well, such as 'The Sims 3: Late Night announced, info available on the wiki' or something like that. I'd certainly be up for it. I already registered a Twitter account with our name in my email. If we do go ahead and adopt this idea, we'll probably need a joint email as well. Duskey ( talk ) 21:30, July 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * Comments
 * Comments

The problem with all this is that is encourages stuff going on behind closed doors, which is really against the whole wiki concept, but I can see where it will come in handy. So far for affiliates I've been using my own email, but we could use a joint on as well. Another problem is, who do we give access to those servies? I mean the email and the twitter. Who should get the password? And I can already foresee the complaints about there being a 'club' within the administrator ranks which new admins might feel excluded from since they do not have access to the same tools as other admins do. Duskey ( talk ) 21:30, July 28, 2010 (UTC)

Yet another hurdle is vandalism or abuse. We need administrators to keep on eye on these external services to prevent abuse and how do we handle it if an admin with password for the stuff goes rogue. I'm quite sure we would be unable to retrieve the accounts. Duskey ( talk ) 21:30, July 28, 2010 (UTC)

Another thing: We'll need a place where we can share the passwords of these accounts. Nicmavr has suggested Google groups, so all you need a is a google account to join. Duskey ( talk ) 14:54, July 29, 2010 (UTC)

I added 'suggested sites' above. Duskey ( talk ) 12:57, July 31, 2010 (UTC)

I've made a Twitter so you can preview it: http://twitter.com/thesimswiki I even pimped it out in our colors etc. Duskey ( talk ) 08:18, August 6, 2010 (UTC)


 * Twitter page looks good. I have been posting to Facebook with Wikia's Facebook Connect. --a_morris (talk) 19:05, August 8, 2010 (UTC)


 * Cool. I'm not a FB user, so I can't really help there. How do you like Google Groups for password sharing among admins with access to the stuff? Unless anyone has any crazy objections I'd like to fire off the Twitter page in the coming days. Duskey ( talk ) 19:27, August 8, 2010 (UTC)


 * Moved from the community portal discussion. Duskey ( talk ) 14:35, August 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * Created The Sims Wiki:Admin Portal/sites. Duskey ( talk ) 15:31, August 14, 2010 (UTC)

The next step
What's the next step? The way I see it we just use Twitter to announce our news posting which go on the main page. Remember to include links directly to the post in Bit.ly format. Facebook should probably contain similar postings, I have no idea how that works though (Facebook that is).

The Google group is only used so all invited admins have the passwords. The Gmail is only used since all these sites (Twitter, Bit.ly etc) required an email to register. It should only be used for affiliation emails. It should not be used as a contact email, we have the wiki for that.

Personally I would hold off announcing all this until we get it on the right tracks, meaning all active 'crats control the google group and we make some userboxes like "I'm following TSW on Twitter" etc. Duskey ( talk ) 15:50, August 14, 2010 (UTC)


 * I've created a Facebook page for The Sims Wiki and linked (export Facebook posts to Twitter) it to our Twitter account. I am the admin of the page but I can add others through Facebook friends or email. --a_morris (talk) 18:46, August 14, 2010 (UTC)


 * A toddler informed me that there's now two FB pages on our Wiki, is this intentional? What do you mean you linked it to our twitter? Does this mean twitter posts will show up on facebook? Duskey ( talk ) 20:19, August 14, 2010 (UTC)


 * The page that was linked here before was not "owned" by anyone and therefore could not be posted to or administered in anyway. The second one is administered by me so far. I'm not positive if twitter posts will show up on facebook. It is either facebook -> twitter or facebook <-> twitter. --a_morris (talk) 21:30, August 14, 2010 (UTC)


 * Clarifying: The link only goes facebook to twitter. The Twitter app on facebook can make posts only to personal profiles not pages but other applications can. --a_morris (talk) 17:14, August 15, 2010 (UTC)


 * I've made Template:Top area. I figure we'll use this on the main page when we decide to launch these sites. Duskey ( talk ) 16:11, August 27, 2010 (UTC)


 * I found an application called Smart Twitter for Pages and linked our twitter account to update our facebook fan page (hopefully). Let me know if there are any problems. I am setting the app to allow retweets and @replies. It can also allow @mentions and #hashtags, lmk if I should set those as well. --a_morris (talk) 22:14, October 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Just posted on facebook and it showed up on twitter, so it's definitely working that way. --a_morris (talk) 22:34, October 5, 2010 (UTC)

Like Button code
Like Button code:



or



Announced
It's announced! We're not officially on Twitter, FB & YT. Can I get someone on FB to add the Twitter widget there? This way we won't HAVE to update both places. Duskey ( talk ) 22:16, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

Admin Portal talk page archives
As you may notice, a few resolved discussions have been archived. I encourage you to go to the archive and check it out, since I think it may be a feature we want to duplicate, especially for discussion pages that have multiple archive pages. The system on the Admin Portal talk archive hides all discussions except those which the reader wants to see, allowing a person to easily find the discussion they're looking for without tons of needless scrolling. Further, I kept the checkmark/x mark 'resolved' statement out of the hidden table, since it gives a brief discussion of the outcome, and is useful in that regard. Any improvements to the layout are appreciated. I'll soon write up a brief description of how to add more items to that archive, but first...

I have been operating off an unspoken rule, made by me. I think, though, that it's worth discussing. I have been operating under the following "rules"; 1) a discussion will be ruled as "resolved" (and thus given a green check or red 'x') after it is apparent that no more discussion will be introduced; it's up to the individual admin in that case to determine if more discussion is still a significant possibility. After the discussion is considered resolved, I have kept it on this page for a few more weeks, so that readers (specifically admins) can take note of the decision and possibly re-open the discussion if needed. After that period, I have archived the contents. I think this system is ideal, as it gives plenty of time for review and discussion before the information is moved.

What are your thoughts, either on the "storage system" in the archive, or the rule of thumb regarding when discussions are resolved and when they're moved to the archives? -- Patrick (LostInRiverview) (talk)(blog)(random page) 22:39, September 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * A thing to notice is that the discussions were not archived in a typical order, but rather were archived based on the date that they were resolved. I think this is idea since often discussions can stretch over many months, or may be brought up and resolved relatively quickly. In this way, newly resolved discussions can be added chronologically in-order to the archive on an individual basis, rather than en masse. Thoughts on that as well? -- Patrick (LostInRiverview) (talk)(blog)(random page) 22:52, September 11, 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it's a wonderful system, but I do think we should call it something other than an archive and maybe call it... resolved issues or something. To me an archive is still for when a talk page gets too large, then you move old discussions there. In my opinion the "resolved issues" can still have the archive header, but should have a different nav window to link to them, perhaps similar to the "Important discussions elsewhere" on the CP (Community Portal) talk page. -- Duskey talk 10:02, September 12, 2010 (UTC)


 * Moved archive to The Sims Wiki talk:Admin Portal/resolved discussions. As for the navigation, I'll leave it alone for now since I'm not entirely sure what you're going for. -- Patrick (LostInRiverview) (talk)(blog)(random page) 15:07, September 12, 2010 (UTC)


 * Check Template:Resolved/mini


 * Can that be used for the resolved stuff? I've seen something similar on Wikipedia. -- Duskey talk 15:00, September 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * Updated the template to be smaller. -- Duskey talk 01:16, September 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * The template is now being used on this page and on the resolved discussions page. I may craft a quick template that allows us to quickly set up a hidden discussion, specifically for the admin portal resolved discussions page. Otherwise, copying over the code isn't too daunting, just a bit annoying. -- Patrick (LostInRiverview) (talk)(blog)(random page) 21:28, September 20, 2010 (UTC)


 * How so? I suggest we test this system out here. In the future it might be an idea to adopt the system on Comm Portal and Dev Portal. -- Duskey talk 01:22, September 21, 2010 (UTC)

New 'Resolved Discussions' layout
The wikitable feature used on the resolved discussions page does not work under the new skin. Therefore, new archivals should utilize the collapsible navbox feature to hide previous discussions. Below is the code currently used for those boxes on the archive page:

Which produces this:

All discussions on that page will shortly be transferred into the new format. Unfortunately, the text in the navbox format automatically centers, and I don't know how to prevent this. If you have more experience with navboxes and know how to left-align the text, please tell me how, or else go onto the resolved discussions page and make the changes yourself. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 23:19, October 21, 2010 (UTC)

User with multiple accounts
I'm beginning to suspect a user for using multiple accounts to skew the votes of the featured content in their favor. The user has the most edits on God of the sims. I requested a CheckUser by Wikia staff and have just recieved a reply. It revealed that a series of usernames have edited from the same two IPs. Note that I am only listing the IPs since they're readily available in the wiki history and were chosen with the exact same criterias as the usernames.

The following 3 usernames have edited from the same IP address.

The following 6 usernames have also edited from the same IP address. The date after the links is the user creation date (see log)
 * 16:38, September 15, 2010
 * 16:42, September 15, 2010
 * 16:45, September 15, 2010
 * 16:49, September 15, 2010
 * 16:54, September 15, 2010
 * 16:54, September 15, 2010

All these usernames and IPs have voted for the same featured content within a very narrow time period. Check Featured article voting history and Featured media voting history. Note that times are UTC+2.


 * Sarah Crittur
 * 17:11, September 10, 2010 92.12.97.63
 * 17:17, September 10, 2010 Vampiregod
 * 22:12, September 10, 2010 92.12.97.63
 * 22:16, September 10, 2010 ~katana (Replacing IP vote above)
 * 12:04, September 11, 2010 God of the sims
 * 18:56, September 15, 2010 Yes me man
 * 19:30, September 15, 2010 Ffiontomas


 * Cho Sunwhun
 * 19:24, September 10, 2010 Vampiregod
 * 12:11, September 11, 2010 God of the sims
 * 18:36, September 15, 2010 92.11.39.32
 * 18:40, September 15, 2010 Mavgay
 * 18:44, September 15, 2010 Tortylok
 * 18:47, September 15, 2010 Kayleyzomik
 * 18:52, September 15, 2010 Ffiontomas
 * 18:58, September 15, 2010 Yes me man

These two are the most apparent ones, but if you check the contribs of the users and the history of the two voting pages, you'll clearly see the similarities in votes, the narrow timestamps (few minutes apart) and that the edits sometimes edit the other accounts' timestamps.

Note that 'God of the sims' is the only user out these to have edits outside the votes and even then it's limited to user page and my talk page. I know that IPs can be dynamic, but based on the timestamps and the similar edits of these users, I believe they are all the same person. Do you agree?

If they are all the same, what do we do about it? I would suggest removing all the votes and blocking each user permanently with the exception of God of the sims, which will recieve a limited, but harsh block. The person is clearly capable of changing IP so the IPs shouldn't be blocked. -- Duskey talk 09:09, September 22, 2010 (UTC)


 * With the possible exception of "God of the sims", it does appear that they are likely to be the same person. Since "God of the sims" mentioned sharing a computer, I'm open to the possibility that two people are involved and only one is using multiple accounts, but don't ask me to put any money on it. Dharden (talk) 16:01, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * The obvious first step would be to remove the duplicate votes, except (possibly) for the vote cast by god of the sims. It seems fairly likely to me, based on the way the votes fell, that GotS is likely not being honest about what is really going on - I hate to make that conclusion, but the evidence in the case makes it appear likely. However, getting GotS' side of the story in this matter may not be a bad idea, before we end up issuing blocks. In any case, keep an eye on the behavior of the multiple IPs and users, and be prepared to issue sock bans if needed. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 18:16, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm going to bump this because there hasn't been any discussion in a few days. Let's get a resolution here, please, especially since the Featured Article is set to switch over in two days. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 21:09, September 28, 2010 (UTC)


 * I notice that a user has appeared, with only one contribution other than votes, and that a userpage edit. I seriously doubt that the similarity to "Ffiontomas" is coincidental. I smell socks. Dharden (talk) 06:14, October 8, 2010 (UTC)


 * I also notice there have been several votes from IP 92.2.108.201 withing a couple of days, but no other contributions. Dharden (talk) 06:20, October 8, 2010 (UTC)

Well, since users can always log out and vote with their IP, the only way to prevent this is to forbid IP users from voting. I also think that a minimum of contributions requirement should be implemented, it's the only way to keep obvious sockpuppets from voting multiple times. We can't prevent people from doing it 100%, but we can discourage it. -- Duskey talk 11:15, October 9, 2010 (UTC)

User:The Sims 3 Late Night
What's the policy on someone using a game title as a username? Dharden (talk) 22:46, October 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * There is none. If you are going to block it, however, I would suggest that you allow the associated IP to create a new account with a different name. IF you do anything, make sure the user is aware of what you've done. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 23:06, October 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * I've drafted a proposed policy on the Policy talk page regarding this issue. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 06:19, November 12, 2010 (UTC)

User:Vampire1901
user:Vampire1901 is a Sock of simcontributor because he said his sim3.com username is:Elizabeth2345 on darthcookie's talkpage And Simcontributor said his sim3.com username is:Elizabeth2345 too. on his userpage.--Monster2821 (Talk) 20:11, October 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * Also there's more proof on irc just ask the people on there.--Monster2821 (Talk) 20:14, October 28, 2010 (UTC)

If you look at Special:Contributions/Vampire1901, you can see that the account was active while Simcontributor was blocked. Both User:Simcontributor and User talk:DarthCookie both mention the username, Elizabeth2345. I am usually on the IRC channel so feel free to ask me for any more information. GEORGIE GIBBONS  talk contributions 20:19, October 28, 2010 (UTC)


 * Now that Simcontributor is blocked permanently, shouldn't the block on Vampire1901 be changed to permanant? GEORGIE  GIBBONS  talk contributions 14:14, November 12, 2010 (UTC)

I see that Vampire1901 is back. Since they weren't given a permanent block, should we give them one last chance? Dharden (talk) 16:22, November 22, 2010 (UTC)

Weekly Facebook page stats

 * 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)

"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)

User:Makii4
All this user has done is upload fake box art for nonexistent EPs. The images are not placed on any pages, and the user does not provide any evidence that there is even a rumor about those EPs. I have notified this user that the images will be unless they can point to rumors about those EPs - but it they persist in uploading such images, can we do more than just delete them as they appear? Dharden (talk) 03:40, November 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * Looking at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions, I would suggest putting Makii4 on an upload restriction. Maybe something like this:  --a_morris (talk) 22:31, November 26, 2010 (UTC)

Top 10
Attn. Admins,

In about a day I will be sending in a contact to Wikia to have them activate the 'Top 10' feature (as described here). If you have any objections to this, please say so before I make contact. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 18:38, December 16, 2010 (UTC)


 * Update

Top 10 has now been activated, and polls are being created. If there is something in a Top 10 that is inappropriate or needs to be deleted, click on 'edit' and delete the item from the list. Comments can be deleted too, or edited for content. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 08:40, December 19, 2010 (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)

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)

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)

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. 17:23, February 26, 2011 (UTC)