The Sims Wiki talk:Admin Portal/resolved discussions 2015

Anniversary events
Hello admins,

I'm bringing this up here instead of on the CD forum because I don't want to heavily publicize something that may ultimately not come to fruition. I would like for us to come up with some way to commemorate or celebrate the 15th anniversary of The Sims series and the 10th anniversary of our Wiki; both anniversaries occur in the first week of February, about two weeks from now.

I would like to have some sort of game giveaway on the wiki. My rough idea is some sort of public blog, something along the lines of a Monthly Question blog insomuch as it would be a question/answer format, with users commenting on that blog in order to qualify for a random drawing to win a copy of The Sims 4. I can provide one or two copies of The Sims 4 or some other Sim game (perhaps a couple EPs for TS3 bundled together as one prize?), but I wouldn't want to pursue this idea without admin support here. If we were to try and host a giveaway like this, the resulting blog would likely need to be regularly moderated by admins. Additionally, depending on how we choose to give out the game codes, we may need staff involvement. I'm not sure since to my knowledge we've never attempted a game giveaway on the wiki before. I can send a message out to staff and see if they have any particular need to be involved, if this idea is well-received here.

Aside from a game giveaway, I'd love to think of some other ideas for celebration. Of course, anything we do come up with needs to be implemented quickly, as we're barely a week away from the TS1 anniversary date.

So, thoughts? --  LostInRiverview talk • blog  •  contribs 05:41, January 25, 2015 (UTC)


 * Sounds like an otherwise good idea... but I'm not sure if one week is enough to get it done. If needed we could offer a smaller prize or something. --I am  k6ka  Talk to me!   See what I have done  20:36, January 25, 2015 (UTC)
 * We can (and have) given away games on twitter so that's an option, however I would like to keep it on the wiki (maybe some sort of notice on social media as well). This is just my own preference. Maybe offer a couple of different prizes so we can do some sort of level thing, i.e. first wins TS4, second wins an ep, etc, also would help incase the winner already has the prize.


 * How about we also give a special userbox for those who participate? Of course in the end anyone can really attach it themselves in their own userpage, but I don't think it really matters? If someone uses the userbox while they didn't really participate, they decide. As for the giveaway idea, I'm not really familiar with it. How do we set up the procedure of the event and the prize?  Nikel  Talk  –  Vote!  10:36, January 26, 2015 (UTC)
 * Regarding the giveaway... We would write a blog post on the wiki and open it up to comments. After a certain period of time, say one week, we'd close the comments section down, remove any disqualified comments (i.e. comments by unregistered users, blocked users, or duplicate comments by the same person), and then randomly choose a winner or winners from the remaining comments. Then we would contact that user through their talk page and have them send an email to a member of the administrative team (probably me since I'd be giving the code away) to claim a game code. The game code would be redeemable in Origin for a copy of the game. --  LostInRiverview talk • blog  •  contribs 00:31, January 27, 2015 (UTC)

User:Ilovethesims199
So, PM'd me over MTS:

"Are you Nikel23 from the sims wiki because I wanted to ask if it would be ok for me to disable my accounts and create another for a clean start. Because I truly want to be a editor I just create more accounts because mine is globally blocked for infinite and I wanted a 2nd chance because I can be a good and valuable user. Please I counted and in 150 days all my accounts will be disabled and my new account will make you all proud. I won't sock anymore all I want is a clean start with a new name. I hope to be all you guys friends."

I think this should be discussed here. IIRC, I wasn't really around or paid any attention to him before he got blocked, so I can't really say much about what he has done. I know he's made numerous socks, i.e. Coolsimsplayer, SimsWikiaBulider1234, SimsContributor100, and JustinLovesWikia12345. That doesn't really make any good impression of him. I also noticed there are many other sockpuppetry blocks in Special:BlockList. Do they belong to this user? Last question; is he related to Coolkid1999 and/or ILoveSims5?

Can't they pick any easier names to remember? What do you guys say?  Nikel  Talk  –  Vote!  14:43, February 3, 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't support an unblock in this case, as they have gone straight back to vandalism and disruption after one unblock was made on the AGF principle. The user has constantly made apologetic unblock requests both here and on Wikipedia, and when declined they go back to creating new socks and vandalism. They've also sent me numerous emails asking about the block, and on the other side of the spectrum they have issued death threats on my Wikipedia talk page. There is a discussion on Wikipedia's incident noticeboard regarding this user. --I am  k6ka  Talk to me!   See what I have done  15:43, February 3, 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose: Evidence shows this person is dishonest and unreliable. They were given chances to improve their behavior and they failed. Any claims they make indicating that they've turned over a new leaf should be treated with significant skepticism. This person has used up all their second chances, as far as I'm concerned.  LostInRiverview talk • blog  •  contribs 18:57, February 3, 2015 (UTC)
 * A definite no-no. It's hard to tell if they're being sincere or are taking the mick in their little note to you. If they attempt to make another account, I say we drop the ban-hammer on them, having a member like that in our community can be pretty messy to clean up. Beds (talk - blog ) 19:09, February 3, 2015 (UTC)
 * Support: This may come as somewhat surprising, but I found JustinLovesWikia12345's behaviors before he was blocked was quite amiable: the dude actually listened to the request that the rumor not be added, and I never suspected that he was a sockpuppet of a former vandal until you guys told me about it in chat. If the whole thing is an act, that's one heck of an act. I believe Give 'em enough rope may be put in place: give the dude one more chance, and if he wastes that... well, we'll simply land the banhammer. Given what Nikel had said, I have retracted my support to a Strong Oppose MILK FOR THE UNYUUFEX, FLAT CHEST FOR THE CUTENESS THRONE, SKULLS FOR THE SKULL PROBES  (user talk:Mathetesalexandrou) 05:09, February 4, 2015 (UTC)

Ilovethesims199 sent me another PM. Something tells me he's read this discussion, so here's his PM:

He admitted that he did bad things with his old sockpuppets and now he said he felt guilty for doing this and tried to prove he'd change... by making more socks to make good-faith edits. If he really wanted to redeem himself, why did he try to do the whole sockpuppetries to make things worse instead of reasoning himself right away? Secondly, he wasn't aware that sockpuppetry is not allowed; and thirdly, he made the first sock to mess around with himself in the first place...? Well clearly this shows that he's acting without thinking. Even if he's harmless, it's difficult for me to be convinced that he'd be constructive enough in this wiki.

K6ka, does the user in your link really refer to Ilovethesims199? If so, then this problem is just worse.  Nikel  Talk  –  Vote!  12:18, February 4, 2015 (UTC)


 * I believe so, as they seem to know a lot about TSW (what with their usernames resembling Corymach, and their constant "I vandelize Sims wiki" or "vandelize sims wiki or die" comments), and they all target my userpage. They all seem to know what sockpuppets are as they did, in fact, request a sockpuppet investigation on me (which did not proceed, and the page has been deleted). The style of writing is also unmistakable. --I am  k6ka  Talk to me!   See what I have done  12:50, February 4, 2015 (UTC)


 * I also got a similar message on MTS a few days back. To be honest, I deleted the message without reply because I knew that the user was blocked for repeated vadelism and sockpuppetry. There was nothing in the message that made it apparent to me that the user was indeed "unaware" and had remorse for breaking the house rules. Now seeing that contact with others has also been made just makes me wonder more about the user. Was he truly unaware and won't do it again, or is he just going to get his jollies off by doing it again? I just don't think he was unaware. -- Icemandeaf (talk) 15:53, February 4, 2015 (UTC)
 * I remain fully opposed to an unblock. He clearly knows the rules, but his behavior shows he either doesn't want to follow them or feels they don't apply to him. Letting him back on just shows that he can lie, cheat, and violate the rules and get away with it. No, I'm sorry, but that's not how this works.  LostInRiverview talk • blog  •  contribs 16:13, February 4, 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I haven't checked in with my MTS account for awhile and I noticed messages similar to those that Nikel and Icemandeaf got. --I am  k6ka  Talk to me!   See what I have done  17:43, February 4, 2015 (UTC)
 * No. He's repeated the same mistakes too many times and I'm certain if he was unblocked he would just end up blocked again.
 * Here's his latest response:


 * I checked his socks' history. There were personal attacks, disruptions, and apologies in various wikis. If he really wanted to change his mind, he could've stopped in the second or third wiki but no, he decided to change his mind now. If the intent is to make the wiki better, not starting a disruption is already a good start, and he didn't have to make a lot of trouble in doing so. I'm not convinced when someone did bad enough things, and then insisted on "helping out the wiki" right afterward.  Nikel  Talk  –  Vote!  11:11, February 5, 2015 (UTC)

How often is this guy sending you these messages? I've been thinking a little and I'm starting to think that he might be sincere about this as he hasn't made another sock, along with all this apologizing. However, I still wouldn't like to see him unblocked as when you mess up you have to take the consequences, but I would understand if other people think otherwise in regards to unblocking him.


 * I just got a second message from the same user yesterday. It was very short. "I really did not know the rules and I want to start over a new leaf I had read the rules now and I am ready to move on." I'm still not sure because doing those kind of things once or even twice, and then sending these messages might be believable. But that is not what happened. I have to agree with Nikel on that. -- Icemandeaf (talk) 16:08, February 5, 2015 (UTC)
 * I've received messages on MTS as well:


 * My stance remains unchanged. --  LostInRiverview talk • blog  •  contribs 16:22, February 5, 2015 (UTC)
 * I doubt the consensus needed to unblock the user will ever be developed no matter how many of these messages are sent. I've already added the user to my ignore list to stop the spam. If the user creates a sock on MTS we can contact MTS staff, as sockpuppetry is against their rules as well. --I am  k6ka  Talk to me!   See what I have done  19:46, February 5, 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with your analysis of the situation, and I have placed this person on my ignore list as well. Additionally, if this person is looking at this page - and I would not be surprised if they were - then us discussing this is just a badge of honor. I highly doubt an unblock will come of this, so I think we should just close this discussion, rather than encouraging the sock puppeteer to continue with this futile effort. -  LostInRiverview talk • blog  •  contribs 20:13, February 5, 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I just sent a message to the staff because it happened just as K6ka mentioned. "Mom of 10 kids" just tried to chew me out about blocking "her son". -- Icemandeaf (talk) 22:37, February 5, 2015 (UTC)
 * This user is almost certainly the same user, and it does seem evident that they're monitoring this discussion as well. It should be very evident right now that all of these "Please unblock me" messages are not very truthful, and that no unblock will proceed. This definitely isn't new, but this should make it very clear this user is not here to positively contribute. Only one thing left to do now: "Revert, Block, Ignore." --I am  k6ka  Talk to me!   See what I have done  03:57, February 6, 2015 (UTC)
 * I was gone for a day and I got 6 unread PMs in my MTS inbox. 6 different messages from 4 different users. Yep. This guy is not gonna be unblocked for sure, like ever. All 4 of the socks including Ilovethesims199 himself have been blocked. Apparently it was that k6ka or Icemandeaf has reported them all. That user is apparently all over the internet, so try to report him if anyone notices any signs of him.  Nikel  Talk  –  Vote!  18:37, February 7, 2015 (UTC)
 * If that's the case, obvious sockpuppet is obvious. I retract my previous support MILK FOR THE UNYUUFEX, FLAT CHEST FOR THE CUTENESS THRONE, SKULLS FOR THE SKULL PROBES  (user talk:Mathetesalexandrou) 19:02, February 7, 2015 (UTC)

and
I suspect that both Commentadder and Cubisticmage911 are sockpuppets of : Both Commentadder and Cubisticmage911 have been issued warning from the GTA wiki, and both have been seen uploading gif images to the Disney wiki, when an admin from the said wiki told commentadder not to. I have blocked Cubisticmage911 for 12 hours, please confirm sock and hardblock if needed. MILK FOR THE UNYUUFEX, FLAT CHEST FOR THE CUTENESS THRONE, SKULLS FOR THE SKULL PROBES (user talk:Mathetesalexandrou) 01:29, March 21, 2015 (UTC)

In addition, the user Cubistic.mage has been blocked on Disney wiki for vandalizing stuff regarding Lilo and Stitch, and while Commentadder and Cubisticmage911 haven't overtly vandalized them, they have made edits on articles dealing with the said subject matter, and as stated above Commentadder has been told not to upload gif images and Cubisticimage911 has been seen doing the same. MILK FOR THE UNYUUFEX, FLAT CHEST FOR THE CUTENESS THRONE, SKULLS FOR THE SKULL PROBES (user talk:Mathetesalexandrou) 01:35, March 21, 2015 (UTC)
 * After looking into this, I suspect that you are correct, at least as far as Commentadder being the same person as Cubisticmage911. Regarding whether they are the same person as Cubistic.mage, that would be difficult to prove and ultimately not relevant, as controlling two accounts is sockpuppetry in and of itself. I'll put in a CU request. --  LostInRiverview talk • blog  •  contribs 01:43, March 21, 2015 (UTC)
 * I suspect that they are the same user because of the copy and pasting of the block notice from Commentadder to Cubisticmage911's talk page. I guess we'll just wait to see what the CU says. -- Icemandeaf (talk) 21:19, March 21, 2015 (UTC)
 * Both users have been globally blocked on Wikia. That, as well as the other evidence presented, pretty much confirms that they are socks. At this point, since both accounts are globally blocked, there's nothing more we need to do. -  LostInRiverview talk • blog  •  contribs 01:20, March 22, 2015 (UTC)
 * What do you know, I've earned my keep as admin for once. MILK FOR THE UNYUUFEX, FLAT CHEST FOR THE CUTENESS THRONE, SKULLS FOR THE SKULL PROBES  (user talk:Mathetesalexandrou) 03:14, March 22, 2015 (UTC)

and
I suspect that the user is a sockpuppet of. Whilst neither account has technically made any bad-faith edits, VonBraun did blank AlexConnorBrown's userpage, which I reverted just in case. I recommend issuing a soft block to AlexConnorBrown's account, as it is probably so that this user wishes to use the VonBraun account in the future. &#8213; The  Tim   Man  (Infinite Histories • Galactic Crucibles • The Sims Wiki • Hallows Maleficent • Why I'm here in the first place ) 23:15, March 21, 2015 (UTC)


 * I shall leave a message for him to check and confirm. MILK FOR THE UNYUUFEX, FLAT CHEST FOR THE CUTENESS THRONE, SKULLS FOR THE SKULL PROBES  (user talk:Mathetesalexandrou) 00:03, March 22, 2015 (UTC)


 * AlexConnorBrown was created on March 20, 2011, and has 21 total edits across Wikia. VonBraun was created on August 5, 2014, and has 1,324 total edits across Wikia. --I am  k6ka  Talk to me!   See what I have done  01:24, March 22, 2015 (UTC)


 * The fact that they share the same name is probably a coincidence?  Nikel  Talk  –  Vote!  08:18, March 22, 2015 (UTC)


 * It's possible that it's coincidence, but VonBraun's header says "aka Alex Brown". Also, AlexConnorBrown's profile says "I am Alex Brown i am 11 years old", but that edit was made on April 2, 2011. I suspect that this user either left or was "escorted out" for being underage, and may have forgotten the login for AlexConnorBrown by the time he decided to return. I think a soft block for AlexConnorBrown is probably a good idea. Dharden (talk) 14:18, March 24, 2015 (UTC)


 * So we all good for a soft block for ACB? &#8213; The  Tim   Man  (Infinite Histories • Galactic Crucibles • The Sims Wiki • Hallows Maleficent • Why I'm here in the first place ) 23:12, March 25, 2015 (UTC)

Possible socks discussion
I chose not to put the user names in the header, in case the named users would happen to see the header name pop up in recent changes or wiki activity. But there is a matter of some importance regarding a few editors here that is worthy of discussion.

created an account on TSW yesterday, and the *very first place* they edited was the noticeboard, where they left this message:


 * EPICMINECRAFTER and Chrissy Brown who is ILoveTheSims5 have the same profile pic see:https://m.youtube.com/channel/UCRwsWlSDoiAVkPgW2gF5qCQ I think she is a sock puppet of ILoveSims5. Sweet&#38;Innocent (talk) 15:50, March 24, 2015 (UTC) [Links added by me]

This message was sent less than a day after I received a pair of messages on ModTheSims from "Lover1219." The first message was very much like the one above; here it is in its entirety:

  ''
 * ''The truth about User:EPICMINECRAFTER101 is that she is a sock of User:ILoveTheSims5 See: https://m.youtube.com/channel/UCRwsWlSDoiAVkPgW2gF5qCQ
 * ''And
 * ''http://simsfanonstories.wikia.com/wiki/Message_Wall:EPICMINECRAFTER101
 * She has of same profile pic as Chrissy Brown who is ILoveTheSims5 

The second message from "Lover1219" is what gives me pause, however:


 * I have truly changed and I regret what I did. I'd like to apologize to everyone. I am being honest. I truly just want to be you guys friend. I want to help you guys improve your wiki and help the whole wikia community. I'd like to be a VSTF because I want to help wikia. It's my favorite site. I am done doing bad things I promise. I will get all my accounts globally disabled. I truly have had a change of heart. I regret everything I did in the past. It was a horrible mistake and I've learned from it. I will never sock or troll or vandalize again. I just want a chance to prove myself to you guys. I am a worthy and useful contributor. I really just want to be a good user. I wish I could take everything back. Please forgive me. 

Then, as if this all wasn't confusing enough, I received another message on MTS about an hour later, from a different account, "ChissyAnna Brown", which is as follows:


 * My Recent Sock Is EPICMINECRAFTER101 

I find it very hard to believe that Sweet&Innocent is not "Lover1219" of ModTheSims, and I'm also reasonably sure that this person is also in control of the "ChrissyAnna Brown" alias on MTS. Whether this person is in fact ILS5, I cannot say. If S&I is indeed telling the truth - if EPICMINECRAFTER101 is a sock of ILS5 - then it makes little sense why this person would tell us. I am very doubtful of their motives, especially since they seem to display the same traits that ILS5 herself possesses, particularly a propensity to make contact through outside channels, and a higher-than-normal level of understanding of TSW's processes. If S&I is indeed "Lover1219," then it would seem that they are ILS5, in which case, why on earth would ILS5 be reporting one of her own socks?

To be honest, I think this is a monster that we are partially responsible for. We go about hunting down and tracking sockpuppets as if it is an important function of our jobs. I myself have warned another user for sock-hunting, and I think it might be time to institute a policy against regular users making sockpuppet accusations. While in C.Syde's case he was trying to be helpful, the situation here shows that such accusations can cause tons of confusion, and in any case are hardly in standing with an assumption of good faith. /rant

So, what shall we do? -  LostInRiverview talk • blog  •  contribs 16:08, March 25, 2015 (UTC)


 * I, too, have gotten those same messages and in a similar place as you. There is something very suspicious about this, but no solid proof to block anyone. On the same token, this sort of sock-hunting is disrupting as well. I know something needs to be done, but I don't know what to do either. -- Icemandeaf (talk) 16:23, March 25, 2015 (UTC)


 * C.Syde65, via Chat, has shared some information with me about this issue. He, too, has received a message about something similar to this situation. Here is his message;


 * "I noticed a discussion going on at the Admin Portal talk page. I doubt that the user on ModtheSims really is the real ILoveSims5. They are probably ilovethesims199 in disguise, because they actually sent a message to me on their plan to rid ILS5 sock-puppets. But I have no desire to get involved in any more activities surrounding ILS5."


 * Now, if this happens to be true, then I think we are being meddled with. My personal opinion is that this is probably a completely new troll, trying to bring some old drama back up to this died out flame. That's just my opinion. Of course, Sweet&Innocent could be telling us the truth. For now, this situation just confuses me. ~ Beds (talk - blog ) 19:56, March 25, 2015 (UTC)
 * I think C.Syde may be correct... looking at this now, it does start to really seem like a sock of Ilovethesims999, not ILS5. If that's the case, then this whole thing starts to make more sense. By making a sock accusation, ILTS199 probably thinks he is getting back into our good graces. --  LostInRiverview talk • blog  •  contribs 20:41, March 25, 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry that I didn't report this firsthand. I also got the very same PMs on MTS like LiR (2 from Lover1219, 1 from ChissyAnna Brown). I then checked User Creation Log to see if the same usernames were created that day, but I couldn't see any, so I only reported the PMs to MTS admin because they're almost very certainly socks.


 * Then I got a PM from Sweet&Innocent. I checked it just now, and didn't realize he did make a sock account here. And then he PM'ed me as K6ka1999. I don't think I really need to share his PM contents here. The last PM from him is swearing. So yeah, we probably need to keep an eye on more of his socks.  Nikel  Talk  –  Vote!  14:26, March 26, 2015 (UTC)

User:ILoveSims19
Today, (previously known as "ILoveSims199") came to the IRC channel and asked to have their wiki block lifted. They stated that they've given up on trolling and sock puppetry, and wish to contribute in good faith.

I'm not sure that ILS19 is being genuine, but I feel I need to AGF in this case. I'm not sure I support an immediate unblock, however, given this person's history. It might be justified to deny the request at this time, with the assurance that it will be reconsidered at a later date as long as they uphold their promise to stop creating sock puppets. Ultimately, it's up to us how we want to handle this. -  LostInRiverview talk • blog  •  contribs 19:53, May 28, 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm sure we're all aware that this isn't the first time ILS19 has requested for unblock and promised to behave. He's been rejected several times, and he acted even worse from MTS PMs for example. Don't forget about the previous discussion about him. I'm sure you remember that and you've said that you want to AGF, but IMO, I'm not feeling very supportive about this after all.  Nikel  Talk  –  Vote!  04:02, May 29, 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm normally up for assuming good faith, but in this case I cannot. With the evidence they have provided, and from past experience with this user, I cannot bring myself to agree with them being unblocked from the wiki. And I can honestly say that nothing they will do, whether it is highly appropriate and good natured, will change my mind on this. ~ Beds  (talk - blog ) 22:28, May 29, 2015 (UTC)
 * Given that this person has created another sock despite promising never to do so ever again, I can safely say that I retract any support I may have had for another chance. Assume good faith only applies when there isn't strong evidence to suggest someone acting in bad faith. With this person, there is ample evidence that proves an ongoing history of bad faith. Oppose unblock. -  LostInRiverview talk • blog  •  contribs 03:35, June 2, 2015 (UTC)