The Sims Wiki talk:Admin Portal/resolved discussions 2010

Digimon spam
{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="margin-left:5px; float:left; width:650px; font-size:100%; border:1px solid #007FFF; background-color: #FFFFFF; text-align:left;" ! colspan="2" style="text-align:center;" |Click here to expand original discussion
 * Original article from development portal talk:
 * Original article from development portal talk:

I found this http://sims.wikia.com/index.php?title=Pleasant_family&diff=155672&oldid=155669 and reverted it of course. I did not warn or ban since the user has made no other contributions, I'll keep an eye on it of course. I can remember removing the same spam from another article some days ago from another IP. I asked some of the VSTF staff if we could watch for these keywords somehow, without any luck. Just a quick reminder: Keep a lookout for spam like this. Duskey ( talk ) 14:25, July 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I have found the same text in thousands (not literally) pages today. I didn't check if it was from the same person.- JEA13  [ iTalk  ] 19:20, July 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * I say we block if it happens twice from the same IP, though I'm almost sure it's just some proxy servers from all over the world. The one in my example is from Indonesia. Duskey ( talk ) 00:32, July 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the best we can do is use google to search for 'digimon' with the 'site:http://sims.wikia.com' paremeter. It only shows this page atm, but it appears the spanish sims wiki has had the same problems. Duskey ( talk ) 07:20, July 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * I blocked 118.137.68.185 for a month. The IP's seem to be from 118.137.x.x range, but we sadly also have legitimate IP users posting from that range so we cannot ban them all. Duskey ( talk ) 07:26, August 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * Previously blocked 118.137.20.48 as well. Duskey ( talk ) 07:53, August 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * Moved article to admin portal talk. Duskey ( talk ) 14:55, August 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * If we see more of this Digimon spam from the 118.137.x.x range, I suggest we block IP users from that range for a month, as a test. Normal contributors can from that range will still be able to register and then contribute as normal, but IP's from that range will not be able to edit. What do you think? Duskey ( talk ) 14:55, August 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think vandalism even of this type or magnitude warrants potentially blocking several people who have done nothing wrong, just because they coincidentally have an IP address that falls within a certain range. If this continues, though, it might be best to send a message to someone on the VSTF, since maybe they have an idea that will stop it, without possibly barring innocent users. Plus, to be honest, while this sort of thing is a nuisance, it doesn't do any real or permanent harm, since it's revertible and those users can be blocked. -- Patrick (LostInRiverview) (talk)(blog)(random page) 15:48, August 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Just for the record: The range block of IP users were the advice given by folk from VSTF. Duskey ( talk ) 20:36, August 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * Since I just caught another, I'm doing some investigation into this: Duskey ( talk ) 08:29, August 22, 2010 (UTC)

Facts

 * Common factors
 * 118.137.x.x IP's
 * So far not twice from the same IP.
 * It seems they save the old article from previous visits and then add the spam resulting in parts of an old article show up in the edit as well.


 * Ways to prevent
 * {|class="wikitable heading-blue"
 * {|class="wikitable heading-blue"

!Action!!Pros!!Cons Maybe 118.137.20-68.x||Will probably stop it||A very large range, though people can still register and edit
 * Range block 118.137.x.x anon users only
 * Range block 118.137.x.x anon users only
 * Semi-Protect affected pages||Might stop it||No immidiate pattern of pages chosen, Will affect all anon users instead of just the ones in the range block
 * }
 * }


 * What to do now
 * Discuss the issue and come up with countermeasures.
 * Check history and try to find more incidents for comparison.
 * Admins follow targeted pages.

Continued discussion
Thoughts, questions, ideas? As mentioned above I've asked some people from VSTF and they suggested the range block. Duskey ( talk ) 08:29, August 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * I did a whois on all of them . They all return the same information, they're all from Indonesia and owned by some ISP called Firstmedia there. This means that either the spammer is their customer or he's using their server as a proxy. The company doesn't have a "Report abuse" button or anything like that so they probably won't react in any way if we contact them. Duskey ( talk ) 14:41, August 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * Though I was hesitant, I say that a range block may be in order. My only concern, however, is a question of numbers; if we block all IPs starting with 118.137, how many people could that potentially block from the wiki?-- Patrick (LostInRiverview) (talk)(blog)(random page) 14:47, August 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not an expert, but my guess would be everyone from Indonesia using Firstmedia and who isn't registered. Unfortunately there is no way we can search for IP users, but I have seen legit edits from that range. We could contact wikia to see if they have an alternate solution and maybe request an estimate of the amount of traffic from that range. If we implement the range block I imagine we make a news post and a site notice about it. Think of unregistered editing as a luxury, it's not something users can demand. Duskey ( talk ) 03:09, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * That might be a good option... if I recall, you can set a separate site notice for IP users... you could make a message there that says basically "if you can't edit, your ip may be blocked - please register in order to edit articles." Then it would be important that the block is set so that the blocked ips aren't prohibited from creating a new username. Registered users are altogether easier to handle, vandalism-wise. -- Patrick (LostInRiverview) (talk)(blog)(random page) 03:19, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's any reason to add a message for all IP users. As I wrote earlier we'll do a blog news post, a quick sitenotice and then adding a note to the block message people get. It's at MediaWiki:Blockedtext. I'll send an email to Wikia today asking for help/solutions. Duskey ( talk ) 16:53, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * I forgot to add: I suggest we do the range block as a test at first in a 3 month period and then see if we catch any more of them. Duskey ( talk ) 17:00, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * Mail to Wikia sent. Duskey ( talk ) 10:40, August 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * Another one caught. I added it to the tables above. Duskey ( talk ) 11:33, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

Fixed
I finally convinced VSTF to add some stuff to the global block filter and we shouldn't be bothered by Digimon spam any more. If you spot some, don't hesitate to report it here though. Duskey ( talk ) 19:40, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * }

Flame war
{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="margin-left:5px; float:left; width:650px; font-size:100%; border:1px solid #007FFF; background-color: #FFFFFF; text-align:left;" ! colspan="2" style="text-align:center;" |Click here to expand original discussion

Admin Only
There has been an incident regarding the actions of, in which at least two TSW users ( and ) have participated in what I consider to be very hostile behavior. I have instituted a cool-down period for both of them (a 1-hour block from the wiki) and am working to prevent any further hostilities between users until we can decide what to do.

I do not feel that one administrator alone should be making the decisions in this situation, so I would really appreciate as much administrator input as possible. What are we going to do about Auror Andrachome (if anything), and what should we do about the other users? --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 21:12, October 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * I think auror should be banned forever because she has been negative to me on irc and tsw and to the people mentioned above.
 * If anyone disagrees tell me.--Monster2821 (Talk) 21:51, October 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think a user should be banned just because they're a little abrasive. However, if there was a consensus that her behavior has been consistently detrimental, then there would be grounds to do something. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 22:04, October 16, 2010 (UTC)


 * Any pointers on where to look to get up to speed on all of this? Perhaps a quick recap with links would be sweet. I can't really give my opinion on something I know nothing about. -- Duskey talk 22:19, October 16, 2010 (UTC)


 * I suggest edit wars are handled as normal: Warn, block, block longer, block even longer etc. as always. This goes for both participants. If someone disagrees with another users edit, it's a good idea to contact that user on their talk page and see if you can reach some sort of agreement there. If not, take it to the talk page of the article and see what other people think. I don't suggest any further action unless new violations of policies and normal conduct is made. -- Duskey talk 22:55, October 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * This is really about more than edit warring - if it were a simple case of an edit war, I wouldn't be bothered to even bring it up. This is about the conduct of members of this community. I think we need to decide what we are willing to accept from our members, whether the actions made by Auror can be allowed to stand, or whether we are going to allow open hostility towards Auror by the other members. We don't have any real policies that dictate what to do here. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 23:04, October 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's some pages on Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:Edit warring, Wikipedia:Disruptive editing#Dealing with disruptive editors, Wikipedia:Requests for comment (this would appear to be the stage we are at), Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring (examples of disputes and resolutions.)


 * I don't know what the specific issue was but from what I saw, all three of them participated in incivility/personal attacks, but only and  were involved in an edit war, correct?, and the three-revert rule would apply to them. A brief block may be necessary for all involved (already done.) Once consensus is reached on the content issue (if not already) and they continue to edit-war, a stricter revert rule may be put in place for the users and topic(s) involved or a longer block. --a_morris (talk) 17:27, October 17, 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked Auror for 3 days due to &. She was previously warned and blocked for 1 day for the same thing (edit warring). I spoke to Auror on IRC where I explained the best course of action if you have an issue with an edit, is to contact the one who made the edit and work something out. If that's not possible I told her to take it to the article talk page so others can offer their opinion, but she has clearly chosen not to do this, hence the block. -- Duskey talk 20:39, October 17, 2010 (UTC)


 * Consequently I've also blocked Guilherme for 1 day since he has recieved a warning for this earlier. -- Duskey talk 21:11, October 17, 2010 (UTC)

Regular user response
Perhaps the rules of this wiki should be looked over and maybe have something about personal attacks added and be tougher on such attacks. I agree with a warning the first time an Edit War is started and maybe one hour to a day suspension if on is esculated a second time by the same users, both regular users and admins. Also maybe a limit on age for becoming a full admin. main reason i say this is because with age usually comes maturity. also i noticed the users in the issue above are below the age of 18 and Patrick, Duskey and Dharden are adults. just a suggestion.Bafendo 04:06, October 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * I think Auror must receive only a warn about her behaviour, I think she was a bit mean to many users on this wiki and she doesn't want to change her mind and reactions on here. Thanks --- Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 22:07, October 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. --- » Яσdяigσ X  [̲̅т̲̅α̲̅l̲̅k̲̅][̲̅b̲̅l̲̅σ̲̅g̲̅] « 22:33, October 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that RodrigoX, GG, BobNewbie, and myself should all just get warnings and no perma-bans for any of us since all of us are hard-working users who just want to help out and add new information.
 * I don't want to sound like a victim, but I didn't do much to receive a warning; I just commented on you guys wars. Sure that I disliked Auror's bbehaviour, but I didn't actually entered in the war, I just commented, which IMO isn't that harsh to get a warning... --- » Яσdяigσ X  [̲̅т̲̅α̲̅l̲̅k̲̅][̲̅b̲̅l̲̅σ̲̅g̲̅] « 11:50, October 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes you're right Auror, me and you should receive warns, Rodrigo X not and BobNewbie maybe a friendly one (Note: I don't see you as an enemy and I hope we could repair our relationship)---Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 10:32, October 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * you don't know if somebody is an adult just by them telling you they are because people lie and it's harder or impossible to know that there telling the truth on the internet, these people could be 100 yr.old's , 5 yr.old's,etc.--Monster2821 (Talk) 04:22, October 17, 2010 (UTC)

it was just a suggestion, calm down. I also believe we should all recieve warnings.

All of us over reacted, and Auror, I apologize greatly. --BobNewbie (talk)(blog) 11:45, October 17, 2010 (UTC)

All I actully wanted to do was defend my friend, and those who got hurt by Auror. Rodrigo only commented, he does not really deserve a warning. --BobNewbie (talk)(blog) 12:52, October 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * As far as I'm concerned, I don't think we need to write warnings on talk pages for this, since everyone involved is already well aware of what has happened and most seem apologetic. In other words, let this message serve as the official warning for all. From what I can tell, this all stems from a couple issues, and I hate to pick on Auror here, but they are related to a lot of it.
 * So, to Auror specifically - I appreciate trying to help the wiki, but be mindful of what you say and how your actions come across to other users. What you may see as taking a firm stance, others may see as being mean or uncooperative. I will not hesitate to warn or block for what I see as negative behavior on your part.
 * With this comes a few ground rules for Auror (and for everyone). First, treat others with respect always. If you're going to do something which may cause a scene, please explain your actions and leave the door open to discussion. Do not edit war; if you make an edit and someone reverts it, instead of reverting it again, start a discussion on the talk page and work it out. Be mindful that many people here don't speak English as a first language - they have just as much of a right to edit here as a native English speaker. Instead of deleting content by them, edit it to correct grammar mistakes, and work with the users to improve their English.
 * To everyone else: taking action against other users is never OK. Always contact an administrator if another user violates policy or is in any way uncooperative - if necessary, administrators can act as mediators in a conflict. Do not take matters into your own hands, because that will only make matters worse.
 * Let's move on from this. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 17:48, October 17, 2010 (UTC)


 * }

TSW on other sites
{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="margin-left:5px; float:left; width:650px; font-size:100%; border:1px solid #007FFF; background-color: #FFFFFF; text-align:left;" ! colspan="2" style="text-align:center;" |Click here to expand original discussion 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
{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="margin-left:5px; float:left; width:650px; font-size:100%; border:1px solid #007FFF; background-color: #FFFFFF; text-align:left;" ! colspan="2" style="text-align:center;" |Click here to expand original discussion 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)
 * }

Vandal IP
{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="margin-left:5px; float:left; width:650px; font-size:100%; border:1px solid #007FFF; background-color: #FFFFFF; text-align:left;" ! colspan="2" style="text-align:center;" |Click here to expand original discussion
 * 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:.
 * 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
{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="margin-left:5px; float:left; width:650px; font-size:100%; border:1px solid #007FFF; background-color: #FFFFFF; text-align:left;" ! colspan="2" style="text-align:center;" |Click here to expand original discussion
 * 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.
 * 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)
 * }

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.

Four checkuser confirmed possible sockpuppets...
{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="margin-left:5px; float:left; width:650px; font-size:100%; border:1px solid #007FFF; background-color: #FFFFFF; text-align:left;" ! colspan="2" style="text-align:center;" |Click here to expand original discussion
 * After a discussion on IRC, we thought a user was related to, a serial sockpuppet. However, the email I recieved said,
 * 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)

Response from the four users accused of socking

 * }

CookieMonster888
{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="margin-left:5px; float:left; width:650px; font-size:100%; border:1px solid #007FFF; background-color: #FFFFFF; text-align:left;" ! colspan="2" style="text-align:center;" |Click here to expand original discussion 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)
 * There's been serious talk on the IRC about Monster's activity as an admin, and how much he really deserves it.
 * There's been serious talk on the IRC about Monster's activity as an admin, and how much he really deserves it.
 * 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)

Tempblock redux
{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="margin-left:5px; float:left; width:650px; font-size:100%; border:1px solid #007FFF; background-color: #FFFFFF; text-align:left;" ! colspan="2" style="text-align:center;" |Click here to expand original discussion
 * So, I don't really like Tempblock - the way that the header line (you have been temporarily blocked for 'reason') is worded makes it really hard to give a block reason that sounds intelligent. I think the template is too inflexible as far as including additional information, such as links to the offending edits(s) that led to the block, or a link to the relevant violated policies. I think the expiration parameter in the current template is needless, since we already have a duration parameter.
 * So, I don't really like Tempblock - the way that the header line (you have been temporarily blocked for 'reason') is worded makes it really hard to give a block reason that sounds intelligent. I think the template is too inflexible as far as including additional information, such as links to the offending edits(s) that led to the block, or a link to the relevant violated policies. I think the expiration parameter in the current template is needless, since we already have a duration parameter.

With all this in mind, I've set about redoing the tempblock template. May I now present.... *drumroll*... Tempblock 2.0


 * Proposed template with All Available Parameters


 * Proposed template with Only Required Parameters

The parameters in the new template are:
 * Parameters
 * - The reason for the block being issued; Required
 * - How long the block lasts; Required
 * - The name of the issuing administrator (not their signature - admins should 'sign' with three tildes instead of four); Required
 * - The time and date that the block expires - if provided, a Countdown to the block expiration will be placed down; Optional
 * - Links to a specific policy page (i.e. The Sims Wiki:Policy/ ) - useful if the behavior violates a specific policy; Optional
 * - A designated space to provide links to page history/edit 'diff' of the offending edit(s) so the user knows what specific things they've been blocked for; Optional
 * - A space for listing any additional information that doesn't go anywhere else, for instance whether a user is or is not allowed to edit their talk page, etc.; Optional

If you want to see the code for the template shown above, visit my test page. What do you all think? --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 03:42, March 13, 2012 (UTC)
 * I like how it has more flexibility than the old one and is an improvement. Nice work.
 * I want the additional info to be a little more emphasized, if possible, because usually we add it separated from the template.  Nikel  Talk  04:13, March 13, 2012 (UTC)
 * I think we go a bit overboard with emphasis in our tempblock and warning templates, because emphasis in a template usually means bold text. When half the text in a template is bold, it starts to lose the ability to grab a person's attention, which really was the whole purpose of bolding it in the first place. So, do you have some other idea for emphasizing that information. I myself think it's just fine as I've made it. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 04:20, March 13, 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking about placing the additional info under a horizontal line between the Link to Relevant Policy and "You have ignored a warning" message without bold text, though it might take up some more space...  Nikel  Talk  04:56, March 13, 2012 (UTC)
 * If you do that, use an if# so that the line doesn't display if the parameter isn't filled. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 05:17, March 13, 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it looks amazing. I blocked my first vandal yesterday after they evaded a ban and vandalised GG's userpage and I thought that the template was a bit... Messy. Good work, LiR. 07:26, March 15, 2012 (UTC)

I went ahead and threw these changes into Tempblock. Feel free to go to that template and fiddle around with it to make it better. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 22:34, March 15, 2012 (UTC)
 * }

Protecting this page - should it happen?
{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="margin-left:5px; float:left; width:650px; font-size:100%; border:1px solid #007FFF; background-color: #FFFFFF; text-align:left;" ! colspan="2" style="text-align:center;" |Click here to expand original discussion
 * I've noticed that a few administrators would like this page to be protected so that only admins can edit it. I've also noticed that there have been occasions where non-admins have been invited to voice their opinions here. I know this isn't where we would usually try to gain consensus but as it's an administration issue, I've chosen to bring it up here. I have removed the current sysop-only protection until we gain an outcome.
 * I've noticed that a few administrators would like this page to be protected so that only admins can edit it. I've also noticed that there have been occasions where non-admins have been invited to voice their opinions here. I know this isn't where we would usually try to gain consensus but as it's an administration issue, I've chosen to bring it up here. I have removed the current sysop-only protection until we gain an outcome.

Based on what I've seen, I think this needs to be discussed amongst administrators so we can decide whether to go ahead or not. I personally don't think we should add admin-only protection to this page due to the points I've mentioned above but I wouldn't be opposed to semi-protection. Do you think we should add any protection to this page? 20:53, November 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * I personally don't agree with admin-only protection because regular users have been called to voice their opinions on here. -- RoseGui [[File:Thanks rose.png]] ( talk here ) 21:02, November 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * it is possible we protect this page and just open the protection when regular user is invited on the discussion? because the last discussion uninvited regular user who enter many speculation on the articles just pop up in with angry and accuse us "only information we want can be added to the wiki" then leaving. :( Wir.wiryawan 03:19, November 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Wir, but still uncertain about this. Also, this discussion page is usually used to discuss about not-nice users... which means we're talking about them. It's just not right if they butt in when we discuss about them. Also, we already have community portal talk page, where it's more proper place discussions open for public. So I think this can be our "private corner". Perhaps other users who actually want to join the discussions may give input from any admin's talk page.  Nikel  Talk  14:06, November 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * i support to protect this page for admin only page. because i think this page is created for admin to talk about administrative things about this wiki. so its better to prevent unnecessary regular user to join the talk like what happen couples day ago. we can always open the protection if we need input from regular user and closed it back if the discussion is finished. Wir.wiryawan 03:06, November 15, 2011 (UTC)
 * i support to protect this page for admin only page. because i think this page is created for admin to talk about administrative things about this wiki. so its better to prevent unnecessary regular user to join the talk like what happen couples day ago. we can always open the protection if we need input from regular user and closed it back if the discussion is finished. Wir.wiryawan 03:06, November 15, 2011 (UTC)

Alright, this discussion died long long ago, but I'm going to respond to it because I'd rather this incomplete discussion be brought up later as a reason to pursue some course of action.

I think before we protect pages we should have a good reason. For other pages that are protected as a rule on TSW (like featured content templates, the main page, new game pages), they receive protection for a specific reason, usually to prevent negative edits they would otherwise receive due to their popularity or importance. In contrast, this page is relatively 'out of the way' and I doubt most unregistered users are even aware of it. But aside from this, my biggest problem here is that protection was being sought to lock out non-admins from the discussions that happen here. On no other page on this wiki are select users systematically prevented from contributing simply because they do not possess a rank or position. So while I support the idea that this page is primarily for administrative discussions, I feel that editing rights should remain open to everyone. --  LiR speak ~ read 03:56, May 25, 2012 (UTC) }}

Coming out of Retirement
{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="margin-left:5px; float:left; width:650px; font-size:100%; border:1px solid #007FFF; background-color: #FFFFFF; text-align:left;" ! colspan="2" style="text-align:center;" |Click here to expand original discussion
 * To the bureaucrats: I would like to formally request that I be re-instated as an administrator of the wiki. I retired from service as an administrator and bureaucrat on September 4, 2011. Therefore, as 6 months has not passed since my retirement date, I am requesting to be re-instated here, rather than going through the Requests for Administratorship process (especially as RfAs are currently closed), in accordance with point #3 of the Inactive Administrator Policy, which says:
 * To the bureaucrats: I would like to formally request that I be re-instated as an administrator of the wiki. I retired from service as an administrator and bureaucrat on September 4, 2011. Therefore, as 6 months has not passed since my retirement date, I am requesting to be re-instated here, rather than going through the Requests for Administratorship process (especially as RfAs are currently closed), in accordance with point #3 of the Inactive Administrator Policy, which says:

"A former admin can immediately regain their status by contacting a bureaucrat and declaring their intention to return to active duty if the absence is less than six (6) months. If they are inactive for longer than six months they will have to reapply."

When I left the wiki in September, I chose to do so because I wanted to devote more time to my studies, extra-curricular activities and my job. However, this semester my level of involvement has decreased dramatically, and I feel I am now capable of resuming an administrative post, and of effectively executing that post.

Under the wiki policies, Bureaucrats are allowed to immediately re-instate me. However, because of the fact that I retired, and was not removed due to inactivity, I would ask that the bureaucrats refrain from immediately approving this request, so that if any bureaucrats have any issues with my reinstatement, they can voice them beforehand.

If you have any questions for me or comments, leave them here, and I'll get to them.

Thanks for the consideration! --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 23:54, January 16, 2012 (UTC)
 * I've got no issues with this request myself. However, I'd like to find out the opinions of some other bureaucrats/admins before this is approved for the purpose of making sure everyone is OK with this.
 * I certainly have no objections, especially since you have the policies to back up your request. —Random Ranaun (Talk to me! ) 00:13, January 17, 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no problems with this. Dharden (talk) 00:24, January 17, 2012 (UTC)
 * It's fine for me too. LiR is still eligible to be repromoted.  Nikel  Talk  08:12, January 17, 2012 (UTC)
 * I actually somehow knew you would ask to be re-instated soon, seeing your increased activity rates. I actually wanted to ask you wether you were coming back. As long as you wish to be a bureaucrat here, I fully support your return. And the policies don't actually just allow bureaucrats to re-promote you right away, but you are given the right to demand these flags as well. Therefore, I'm fully OK with this and happy to have you back. 13:13, January 17, 2012 (UTC)
 * Since there are no objections to this, and support for it, it has been done. Dharden (talk) 15:48, January 17, 2012 (UTC)
 * Welcome back to the team :) Wiryawan310 18:39, January 17, 2012 (UTC)
 * You hit on a point I hadn't even throught of, Andronikos... I was a bureaucrat when I left, and I wasn't explicit in my request. For the record, I was requesting only reinstatement as an admin, and that's what I got, so I'm happy with that. I'm ready to get back to work! --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 21:28, January 17, 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm so sorry that I didn't find out about this earlier. =( But I'm really happy that you want to get back, welcome back! -- RoseGui [[File:Thanks rose.png]] ( talk here ) 22:13, January 17, 2012 (UTC)

}}

76.74.153.244/Meep sheep
{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="margin-left:5px; float:left; width:650px; font-size:100%; border:1px solid #007FFF; background-color: #FFFFFF; text-align:left;" ! colspan="2" style="text-align:center;" |Click here to expand original discussion
 * was blocked for a year by LiR today for spam. It's worth noting that the same IP address came onto IRC (vHost - vmail03-lax-playback.tokbox.com) to post the same thing and it turned out to be Meep sheep (not linked to the userpage and separated to avoid triggering the spam filter). Seeing as it's a proxy server anyway, I've upped the block on this IP address to permanent seeing as it's only used for abuse. I urge anyone patrolling both on-IRC and on-wiki to look out for spam from this user to see if it's comparable or not and if it is, I'd suggest permabanning the IP(s). 20:59, May 24, 2012 (UTC)
 * Also if you happen to witness this vandal, don't say anything, whether it be in a block summary or directly, that will provoke him because he craves attention. Just revert, block, ignore; same goes for IRC. 21:18, May 24, 2012 (UTC)
 * We had it happen again today. Dharden blocked a total of eight IP addresses all doing the same thing. When I arrived on-wiki the spammer had already either been blocked by VSTF or had moved on, but I reported the incident to VSTF anyways. Some interesting things to note: Three of the IP addresses used started as 41.xx.xx.xx, and two of them were 80.xx.xx.xx. The spam attack yesterday was at around 2:30 UTC, and today took place at almost the same exact time. Obviously we can't completely bank on a repetitive pattern, but I'd say it would definitely be a good idea if any administrators who can be be present on wiki after 2:00 UTC tomorrow. Additionally, I'd suggest contacting VSTF on the IRC (channel #wikia-vstf) if the spammer returns, in addition to revert-block-ignore as suggested by GG. --  LiR speak ~ read 03:14, May 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * The worst thing is that this guy keeps switching IP ranges...and is notorious for it too. All we can really do is just keep blocking and reporting as long as this guy is trying. 08:06, May 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * And it happened again. I've blocked a few IPs and a Wikia-implemented script killed most of the pages. I noticed a load of IPs attacked Uncyclopedia too so I'm guessing we'll have to rely mostly on Wikia and VSTF. 21:39, May 26, 2012 (UTC)
 * We're under a 6-hour "lockout". -  LiR speak ~ read 21:52, May 26, 2012 (UTC)
 * I thought the spammer only spam the pages. They actually created pages for spamming too.  Nikel  Talk  17:15, May 27, 2012 (UTC)
 * You know I think the Wiki should be disabled for unregistered users for now until this problem is resolved. This is way too much for even admins can handle at the moment, the spammer created so much pages. Starmoonie - Talk Here  17:20, May 27, 2012 (UTC)
 * Starmoonie, I agree. We don't have the tools to lock the wiki ourselves, but VSTF has been notified. If this happens again, someone needs to go on the IRC and join the #wikia-VSTF channel. I've had to do it the last two times and unfortunately I wasn't around when both incidents started, so if you're on wiki when it starts, get to the VSTF channel right away! --  LiR speak ~ read 17:23, May 27, 2012 (UTC)
 * The main problem with that is it will cause a lot of collateral damage, which will probably make our activity levels drop rapidly. Is it certain that anonymous users will at least have the option to create an account? If so then I reluctantly support this as it will be effective against the spammer seeing as we won't know when he'll attack. 18:17, May 27, 2012 (UTC)
 * I've noticed that the deleted contributions of both and  show a different style of spam but using the same randomised gibberish names, which got me suspicious that this may be Meep sheep. For now I say we should leave their blocks at one day assuming this is someone different but this is worth keeping an eye on.  19:05, May 27, 2012 (UTC)
 * I've noticed that the deleted contributions of both and  show a different style of spam but using the same randomised gibberish names, which got me suspicious that this may be Meep sheep. For now I say we should leave their blocks at one day assuming this is someone different but this is worth keeping an eye on.  19:05, May 27, 2012 (UTC)

}}

The IRC op/voice issue, again
{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="margin-left:5px; float:left; width:650px; font-size:100%; border:1px solid #007FFF; background-color: #FFFFFF; text-align:left;" ! colspan="2" style="text-align:center;" |Click here to expand original discussion
 * I know we've hashed this over on the Comm. Portal talk page, but I think that for administrative purposes it should be re-evaluated here. Given the recent spam events and the fact that the IRC channel was targeted at least once, and could be again, that we should revert our previous position on voicing and opping members of that channel. I think, first off, that highly trusted and often present IRC users (who may not be admins on TSW) should be given op rights, specifically Xd1358 but perhaps others as well (JRCrichton?). I don't see the harm in giving special rights to channel members who have proven themselves, especially since I think we need experienced and capable eyes on the Channel and on the Wiki 24/7 if we can. --  LiR speak ~ read 17:47, May 27, 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. Before I was promoted to sysop, there were times in which there weren't any ops. There is a couple of users worthy of those rights since they are trusted IRC-ers. 18:01, May 27, 2012 (UTC)
 * I placed a ban on the nick and we never saw him again so whether or not he's just sticking to one nick is another thing. He's only made one appearance on Thursday the 24th - if he was going to return I'd of thought it would have happened by now.
 * I placed a ban on the nick and we never saw him again so whether or not he's just sticking to one nick is another thing. He's only made one appearance on Thursday the 24th - if he was going to return I'd of thought it would have happened by now.


 * As it currently stands, I don't think we need to worry about it too much on IRC just yet. While I do agree that LiR's suggestions of candidates (Xd and John), I still think the whole eligibility issue can be considered. The fact that users (non-admins) have complained about not having voice (I honestly don't see what's so special about it anyway) makes me wonder what it would be like if the same thing arised with operator flags, except that op is a more "serious" flag than voice. Therefore while I do understand it wouldn't hurt having the extra users to help, I'm going to have to give a weak oppose to this based on the flaws though if the consensus turns out like it did last time then there will be no clear answer.


 * While I'm here, voice is, and should only be, used to designate who is an administrator - I don't really agree at all with non-admins having voice due to the fact that a user looking for administrator help may not know who to ask if they can't see who is designated as an administrator. If the community does decide to allow non-admins to be ops, I really hope what I just said about voice is considered because issues over voice flags have arised in the past and I would be very disappointed if the whole cycle was repeated.


 * I may change my mind on this if conincidentially the spammer's presence on IRC does become problematic but for now I feel that we shouldn't worry. 18:14, May 27, 2012 (UTC)
 * Objection to the voice flags is noted and I agree with your points on that, but I stand by that we should be opping trusted users. "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure," as they say. --  LiR speak ~ read 18:22, May 27, 2012 (UTC)
 * Call me ignorant but I can't help but feel we're overreacting to the spam problem a little bit, with this proposal being an example. This particular spammer has only joined IRC once (which was the first day of the spam attacks) and since I banned the terms *Meep*!*@* and *Sheep*!*@*, this guy hasn't returned at all - it's more than likely he's not interested in evading the ban so we may as well assume he's given up on our IRC channel. For the vast majority of the time, there are at least one or two administrators present (there's like three on IRC now, including myself) and not that much uselessness to deal with anyway. I do not believe that one incident warrants giving out operator flags to non-admins when our current admins can handle things just fine and giving out flags in the past, both chanop and voice, has caused issues that can easily be avoided by one thing only - make it so that only users of an explicit usergroup are allowed voice/op flags: in our case, administrators. Every IRC channel has one guy to cause trouble now and then - that's just how things are. 18:47, May 28, 2012 (UTC)
 * Its not just about the recent spammer, though that was what spurred me to propose this. There have been multiple times where the channel is either without ops or without active ops (because they were either AFK, too busy or simply not paying attention) and these sorts of things have happened. And I really have to ask - what harm would it do? Who gets hurt by giving two more users op flags? I see nothing but benefits coming out of doing this. --  LiR speak ~ read 18:55, May 28, 2012 (UTC)
 * I never said there was any harm in giving flags to two users but I'm rather hinting at the fact that this is all going to spin out into something larger, such as virtually anybody gaining operator flags for no reason thanks to administrators/bureaucrats having personal ties with these users or something like that, and if voice flags caused disruption, it wouldn't surprise me if the same thing, if not worse. happened with operator flags. If it does turn out we will go down the route of opping non-admins then I insist the community has input in who gets these flags and I am aware that this is a tedious process but it's the fairest way of doing things. To me, gaining operator flags on IRC has a parallel resemblance to gaining administrator flags on-wiki - they can actually give a user enough power to "take over" an IRC channel.


 * As for the whole AFK argument, there is often periods where everybody is AFK, even the largest of IRC channels endure these periods and they have even bigger problems than we do and they get on fine with just their administration team having flags on IRC. More often than not, an administrator will notice these things anyway. Plus IIRC, Meep sheep was actually automatically disconnected from freenode because he flooded the channel at a rapid rate before anyone here could ban him (I wasn't actually here when he spammed, DanPin banned the hostmask and I just added nickbans to strengthen it). Again, these things happen in even the largest of channels and they don't need to go to extensive measures like this to resolve these things. Also in my opinion, we're a small channel which doesn't need that many operators - the administration team is enough and the majority of these users are highly active on IRC. This is how I feel we're overreacting to what happens on IRC.


 * I stand by my points of opposition and (assuming we actually gain consensus) if the outcome of this proposal is positive then time may tell if I'm wrong but we're not the only victims of these things, every IRC channel has a spammer every now and then as well as the fact that every channel has AFK operators now and then not to mention that I can see the past unpleasantness with everyone having voice flags being echoed with operator flags but as an even bigger problem. Yes this does have positive things about it but there are also negatives, some of which I have listed here and on the above sections, which I personally can't ignore. 07:18, May 29, 2012 (UTC)

}}

User:Jmcmillin, again
{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="margin-left:5px; float:left; width:650px; font-size:100%; border:1px solid #007FFF; background-color: #FFFFFF; text-align:left;" ! colspan="2" style="text-align:center;" |Click here to expand original discussion
 * Since he has returned, and done the same things that got him blocked before, I have given him a permanent block per this discussion. Dharden (talk) 02:23, May 29, 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree, since he remained persistent with his actions.  Nikel  Talk  04:21, May 29, 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree, since he remained persistent with his actions.  Nikel  Talk  04:21, May 29, 2012 (UTC)

}}