The Sims Wiki talk:Admin Portal

TSW on other sites
Moved from the community portal talk

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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

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

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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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

Like Button code
Like Button code:



or



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

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

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

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


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


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


 * Check Template:Resolved/mini


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


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

Do not move images to replace
Heads up. After thinking I was clever by moving a better image over a similar image of poor quality, I discovered that it wasn't possible. The old image was still at the original location and the new image had been deleted. I contacted Wikia and they said it's a bug in the MediaWiki version they're currently using. It might be fixed in a new version, but Wikia will most likely not upgrade until some time after the whole Oasis business since that's their focus at the moment.

tldr: Don't move files to replace another file. -- Duskey talk 15:00, September 14, 2010 (UTC)

Simcontributor
Moved from User talk:Duskey:

I think SimContributor should receive a permanent block as well as that simsplayer person because they show no sign of change.--Monster2821 (talk) 23:46, September 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. - JEA13  [ iTalk  ] 07:49, September 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * done?,it was only a month.--Monster2821 (talk) 12:50, September 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * Huh? I meant I blocked him. - JEA13  [ iTalk  ] 12:59, September 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * i mean't to say why did you block him for only a month?--Monster2821 (talk) 13:45, September 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * Because the things he did were worth of a single month ban, that's all. :P - 13:51, September 19, 2010 (UTC)


 * I think a permanent and even a month is a bit harsh. I'd love for us to discuss this. Can we state what the person has done recently? Please add to the list below. As for their prior staff it only culminated in a 1 day block after a warning. I think it's too soon for a permanent block.
 * Minor personal attack against Duskey
 * Removing content
 * Adding info to the now deleted Sims 3 Pets article
 * -- Duskey talk 22:13, September 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * I haven't noticed a lot of bad behavior on their part, but I take it that there are some problems. I'm hesitant to issue bans, but I would say that this user should receive a final warning, telling them that any violation of policies may warrant their immediate and permanent removal, due to receiving warnings and disciplinary actions in the past. Tell them that they can contribute as much as they want, so long as the contributions are positive and constructive to the wiki, and that they observe the policies and guidelines that exist here. Allow this user a chance to redeem their behavior; if the choose not to do so, then follow through with longer blocks or a perm. ban. -- Patrick (LostInRiverview) (talk)(blog)(random page) 22:17, September 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * Now the user is socking. Requesting permanant block of Simcontributor and his sock, Should42563. I don't find it coincidential at all that Should is his father as they both seem very similar. GEORGIEGIBBONS (talk) 17:55, September 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah it is a sock I think, she should talks just like Simcontributor. ---Guilherme Guerreiro 18:01, September 20, 2010 (UTC)

Time out! Ok, let's not make any rash decisions here, and let's be logical about how we approach this. Please be specific as to why you think User:Should42563 is a sockpuppet? No one is getting blocked until we can be sure. -- Patrick (LostInRiverview) (talk)(blog)(random page) 18:07, September 20, 2010 (UTC)


 * Should42563 created a page for Simcontributor as well as having a similar writing style and the fact that Should appeared not long after Simcontributor was given a month block. GEORGIEGIBBONS (talk) 18:09, September 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem I have with this is that essentially everyone here has broken down into hysterics. Realize that currently, Simcontributor is under a permanent block (since yesterday) and Should42563 is under a 3-day block for removing content from talk pages. So, the idea that we need to act right away should stop right now. We have plenty of time to discuss this rationally and decide what we should do; should both Simcontributor and Should42563 be tied together as socks and permanently banned or not? This is a decision that the administrators need to make, not the regular users. -- Patrick (LostInRiverview) (talk)(blog)(random page) 18:17, September 20, 2010 (UTC)


 * I can go along with a one-month block plus a final warning. I was under the impression that he was leaving anyway. and will confess that I hoped he would not be hit by the door as he did. Still, if he comes back, behaves himself, and contributes constructively, so much the better. If he messes up again, give him the boot. As for Should42563, I'm not prepared to say that this user is a sock, but I'm also not prepared to say they aren't. Dharden (talk) 19:04, September 20, 2010 (UTC)


 * I support changing the block for Simcontributor to one month along with a final warning. If Simcontributor steps out of line again, I would support a permanent block. As for Should42563 we can't be certain it's a sockpuppet since it's a different IP (or they would be blocked too). A 3-day block seems harsh if their only unconstructive edits are creating a main namespace article and removing talk page content. Let's keep 3-day ban and I'll leave a message on both talk pages. Remember to assume good faith, these two users should be dealt with seperately. -- Duskey talk 20:29, September 20, 2010 (UTC)

I would also like to take this opportunity to remind admins not to insult editors depite how many personal attacks you endure. If you find yourself getting angry, take a few breaths before responding to someone, there's no need to provoke editors to say something that will get them warned or blocked. You can also ask a fellow admin to deal with the person if you can't do so without provoking them. In addition, masking profanity as an admin is just as bad as if someone else did it. -- Duskey talk 20:29, September 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * To wrap this up, here is where we stand as of now: Simcontributor is blocked for about a month (expires October 19th) and Should42563 has received a 3-day block. Simcontributor is currently on final notice, meaning if they violate policies once their block ends, they will receive a permanent ban. We are choosing not to pursue the issue of any alleged sockpuppets without further evidence, meaning that these two users will be treated as separate users.
 * A note to users - though this place is a good location for alerting administrators as to goings-on on the wiki, it's not the right place for users to debate whether a user should receive a block, especially a permanent one. Please allow the administrators time to discuss and come to a conclusion without being bombarded with messages here and on talk pages. Also, please don't throw out suggestions for permanent blocks - if the admins feel a user should be blocked permanently, we will do so.
 * This issue is resolved, pending further actions from the users involved. If an issue arises, it should be discussed in a new topic section. -- Patrick (LostInRiverview) (talk)(blog)(random page) 20:53, September 20, 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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


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


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

Votes in FA/FM
I deleted some votes in the Featured Article and Featured Media pages because they violate, in my view, the Sims Wiki Policies. Namely, the votes were cast by users who have made no edits to the wiki - in some cases, the users only have one edit (that one being the vote they cast). I don't think it's too much to ask that a user make at least one meaningful contribution to the general wiki before they be allowed to participate in votes for featured content. If there's much admin resistance to this, I can undo the deletes. Thoughts? --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 06:44, October 2, 2010 (UTC)