The Sims Wiki talk:Admin Portal

Weekly Facebook page stats

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

November 8, 2010


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

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Protecting this page - should it happen?
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)

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


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


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


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

Users KnucklesTheSim and RandomWikiaUser1680
Discussion moved from Talk:Community Portal

claims to be under a new name. However, KnucklesTheSim is not blocked, was never blocked, and on one occasion (http://sims.wikia.com/index.php?title=Lyla_Grunt&diff=prev&oldid=284693 ) actually removed profanity from an article. IMO, this is notable because RandomWikiaUser1680 is currently blocked for vandalism and profanity. I am not 100% certain that the two users are in fact the same person. Anybody else have any ideas? Dharden (talk) 13:50, December 31, 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't doubt that KnucklesTheSim, way back in August changed their name to RandomWikiaUser... but based on KTS' good behavior, I would definitely lean towards thinking that their account was somehow hacked, or perhaps some sibling got a hold of their account. It just doesn't fit their previous behavior at all. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 13:55, December 31, 2011 (UTC)
 * Good point. Dharden (talk) 14:03, December 31, 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd go with the hacking/sibling hijacking theory, given that Knuckles apparently redirected his userpage to that of RWU1680 back in August. According to Special:Listusers, Knuckles apparently logged in on the 18th of December. A checkuser may or may not be redundant as I know that logs are only kept for 3 months but I'm unsure of whether it logs IP addresses based on login data or edits. I do remember a case in the past where a user from Russia constantly vandalised Knuckles' fanon articles and made poor quality fanon articles with similar names. Here, Knuckles reveals that he lives in the UK. Granted that a CU would be pretty useless if RWU1680 is in the UK too (being a friend or sibling), I'm not sure what to do in this case. 20:02, December 31, 2011 (UTC)
 * Something worth mentioning, I think, is that KnucklesTheSim is currently unblocked. It might be possible that whoever is hijacking RWU1680 is unaware of that account, so maybe if RWU is blocked, the legitimate user will go back to using KnucklesTheSim, although that transition would, I suppose, technically be considered ban evasion and a sock puppet account. But if the idea is that RWU has been compromised, the admins could choose to let it happen, assuming the legitimate user was still aware of the old account. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 21:14, December 31, 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks like this edit was made by someone in relation to RWU1680. whatismyipaddress.com shows it as a "Suspected network sharing device" with the hostname of "hosted-by.ecatel.net". By the looks of things, this could possibly be a proxy server (given what looks to be a vhost) although I could be wrong. 00:40, January 1, 2012 (UTC)
 * I have contacted KnucklesTheSim and I'm waiting for a response. For the issue above, I think 93.174.93.145 should be RWU1680 themselves. I have blocked the IP for a week and extended RWUO1680's block as well to the same amount. Perhaps we should request a CU? 00:45, January 1, 2012 (UTC)
 * Sent in a request. 00:57, January 1, 2012 (UTC)
 * According to the checkuser, neither have used 93.174.93.145 yet both accounts are using the same email address. Whether or not the address is being shared by a whole family or something like that is beyond me but I still doubt that Knuckles is actually socking. I guess all we can do now is wait for Knuckles to respond to Andronikos. 19:13, January 1, 2012 (UTC)
 * Since both accounts use the same email address, it's at least plausible that Knuckles intended to change usernames and that the RWU1680 account was either hacked or hijacked. Regardeless, it does appear to be compromised, and we may need to consider a long-term, or even permanent, block. It also may be advisable to try to contact Knuckles by email, as they may have forgotten about that account. Dharden (talk) 20:19, January 1, 2012 (UTC)
 * I have emailed KnucklesTheSim per Dharden's suggestion and expecting a reply on either the talk page or my inbox. 20:48, January 1, 2012 (UTC)
 * Based on a suggestion LiR made via IRC, I've blocked the two accounts indefinitely (but allowed them to edit their talkpages and email administrators) until this situation can be solved. That way, whoever is compromising the account(s) won't be able to continue. 21:13, January 3, 2012 (UTC)
 * I had some problems with the editor and I was unable to keep this up to date. I apologize for that. Anyway, I received reply from KnucklesTheSim and he stated that he indeed was RandomWikiaUser, and then spammed with random keystrokes :(. Anyway, I believe mailing wasn't a good idea as an option, as it was confirmed they share the same email, so I'm rather unsure of what we should do next. 15:42, January 12, 2012 (UTC)
 * I think its better to wait KnucklesTheSim reply on his talkpage to confirm this. because so far he not reply yet on his talk page yet. they share the same email right? so it is possible the email is hijacked too.
 * But if the account is not hijacked and both used by same person (1 for pure editing and 1 for pure vandalizing) like what andronikos receive from KnucklesTheSim email. a sockpuppetry + vandalism will result permanent block for the both account, but based the person still have good contribution I think 1-3 month block + final warning is better for KnucklesTheSim than permanent. but RandomWikiaUser must be blocked permanently. Wiryawan310 01:46, January 13, 2012 (UTC)
 * I feel that we should try and come to a conclusion about this. I'm still under the impression that RWU has hijacked KTS' account, without KTS knowing meaning that RWU could do what he wants with both accounts without the real owner of KTS ever knowing or that RWU and KTS are possible friends/family IRL and KTS may have left his login details somewhere that it can be easily found (like a Word document or something) and RWU has used this and possibly changed some information related to KTS' account (such as the password and email) preventing him from accessing the account. It may also have been possible that RWU used the suspected proxy server to "cover his tracks" and hide the apparent British IP address being used by KTS/RWU or to cover up what could be a legitimate IP address in a different location by using a proxy server that could be utilised by anyone or it could be possible that the proxy is neither user in question (CheckUser only links accounts to IP addresses if an edit has been made while logged into an account while using that IP) and is just a hit-and-run vandal.


 * There may be more situations that could be the case for this but I don't want to put emphasis on this being a bad faith case when we don't know the truth behind this. I'm thinking of leaving the RandomWikiaUser block at permanent (seeing as someone on that email admitted to being him) while I'm currently undecided on what to do about KnucklesTheSim (though I'm leaning towards keeping it at a permanent block just to be safe), though I'm open to suggestions from other administrators. 22:58, February 2, 2012 (UTC)
 * I suggest leaving both accounts permanently blocked. We've made an honest attempt to contact the rightful owner of the account (assuming that this really is a hijacking case, which we simply don't know for sure) and we've seen that this user either is really the owner and has just decided to start editing in bad faith, or has been compromised. In either case, we don't want that user having access to the wiki, which means that, failing any evidence that the rightful owner is still around, the best choice is to simply block both indefinitely, perhaps with an apology on the talk page addressed to the 'rightful owner', assuming they ever gain control of the account. The apology could be something explaining the situation, maybe saying 'We have attempted to determine if this account has been compromised, and have tried to act as if the owner of this account is still interested in returning to good standing. However this has not been demonstrated, so unfortunately we have decided to indefinitely block this and its associated account.' --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 23:10, February 2, 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with LiR. They haven't even argued about their rights to be unblocked, which is kind suspicious. The chance they will be back and notice they can't edit or realize what has happened is small, and we don't want any risk of further action from RWU/KTS.  Nikel  Talk  08:31, February 3, 2012 (UTC)
 * What everyone else said.
 * I've modified the block accordingly. I guess we can (finally) call this as resolved. 20:25, February 5, 2012 (UTC)

User:Cadenm11
has make many nonconstructive edit to the wiki starting by create many page and category that doesn't warrant its own page + nonsense, creating page that too minim with info and left it alone so I delete it, and the last one inserting nonsense and garbage into article.

I currently blocked that user for 3 days for vandalizing the sims 2 and the sim 2 pets page and since that user only have 16 edits and all of them is nonconstructive edit, I want to give that user a final warning. but before I do that, I want to hear opinion from another admin here. Wiryawan310 18:16, January 15, 2012 (UTC)
 * This may not be my place, but I have to disagree, both with a final warning and the block this user currently has. I've looked through his edits and, though he did vandalize The Sims 2: Pets, it in my opinion wasn't severe enough to warrant a 3-day block, especially since none of his other edits appear to be made in bad faith. I would guess that this user is simply unfamiliar with some of our policies, and perhaps should receive a warning (using the template warning, not a final warning or anything of that sort) instead of the block they currently have. Again, this is just my opinion after looking into it a bit. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 18:58, January 15, 2012 (UTC)
 * @LiR - They have also deleted contributions, which can only be viewed by admins. I'm guessing Wir thought about that as well when he made the block. As for my opinion, I agree with the block.
 * If it weren't for the deleted edits, I'd be inclined to disagree with the block. Considering them, I do agree with it. However, I am willing to consider the possibility that Cadenm11 means well, or at least does not mean ill, so I'd say to hold off on the final warning. Dharden (talk) 23:47, January 15, 2012 (UTC)
 * Assuming he here for a good faith and that user is unfamiliar with rules on this wiki as LiR suggestion. I think we can wait after the block over and if that user creating a same nonconstructive edit or vandalism again the final warning can be issued. Wiryawan310 01:42, January 16, 2012 (UTC)
 * At first I thought he was one of the spammers above, but it's unlikely. He's not spamming after all. I wonder why he persistently did such things...  Nikel  Talk  08:01, January 17, 2012 (UTC)

Just after my block end, he has been blocked again for 1 week by nikel for another nonsense and vandalism. since that user seems doesn't have any good faith to this wiki, I will give him a final warning so another block will be result permanent block. Wiryawan310 14:10, January 24, 2012 (UTC)
 * I forgot that we had a talk about this user. I agree with the final warning. The chance for him to introspect is little, but I'll just see what he'll do.  Nikel  Talk  15:12, January 24, 2012 (UTC)
 * He came back and vandalized Wir's userpage. Since he had been given a final warning, I gave him a permanent block. Dharden (talk) 04:18, February 1, 2012 (UTC)
 * Although this issue has been resolved, there's something that came to my mind. Recently, this user, Cadenm11 has been renamed to TheCadenm11. Though this change isn't significant or has a major impact, I'm wondering who could have possibly renamed this permanently-blocked vandal.  Nikel  Talk  14:27, February 14, 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmmm.... the history for the redirect shows that it was automatically done by Wikia while renaming Cadenm11 to TheCadenm11. Presumably, this user is still active and unblocked elsewhere on Wikia, and renamed their account. However, they are still permanently blocked here. Dharden (talk) 16:16, February 14, 2012 (UTC)

Coming out of Retirement
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)

Cross wiki attack
We know that creating many page about glitch and most of them is deleted because it doesnt warrant its own page. He decide to a new wiki thesimsglitcheswiki to write his glitch article there.

When I visited his wiki, I dissapointed because found something not good there, he make inappropriate edit attacking our wiki twice and personally attack Woganhemlock there.

Can we do something about it? Wiryawan310 07:16, January 23, 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmph. It seemed like he has a personal disliking toward Wogan... And I thought he wasn't a really bad person. :-/ I don't know if we can do something to him, because what he did was out of this wiki. Perhaps we can find a better solution for this without harm... I'll see what others think.  Nikel  Talk  12:14, January 23, 2012 (UTC)


 * The last cross wiki attack is User:Sforster123 to GG and the result is that user is permanently blocked from this wiki because of the unacceptable behavior. In this case can we do the same thing to WinMacSims3? because on his wiki he directly pointed Woganhemlock even give his userlink here, and that is unacceptable! Wiryawan310 12:43, January 23, 2012 (UTC)
 * Though user harassment is serious, WMS3, although I admittedly disliked him, has done numerous contributions on this wiki that can't just be forgotten. Though he has created many articles not warranting their own page, he has contributed a lot as well. Facing this matter with maturity, I believe we should just give him a friendly warning on his wiki and try to resolve the matter with no harm done. Agreed with Nikel per everything else, but I want to see what the ombudsman thinks. 14:48, January 23, 2012 (UTC)
 * Overall, I think he means well, and he has made many good contributions here. However, a large part of his motivation in this matter appears to be personal pique. Therefore, I think that any delete nominations he makes should be considered suspect, and that something having been imported to his wiki should not be considered reason to remove it from this wiki. Dharden (talk) 15:15, January 23, 2012 (UTC)
 * Given that WMS3 has made constructive contributions here (unlike Sforster123 who pretty much trolled his way to a block), I don't think a permanent block is warranted. However, I do feel that someone should give him a warning regarding the cross-wiki attacks, particularly those against WH. 21:47, January 23, 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, let's hold off and let's all take a deep breath here. If Wogan did indeed delete the pages WMS is referring to, then WMS is telling the truth in that statement... which means it's not really an attack - to me, an attack would be if WMS said something that was untrue, or said something in an overly accusatory manner. Rather than warning WMS that he shouldn't make cross-wiki attacks, I think it would be better to ask that, in the future, he not make direct comments about other users. Aside from that, I think all of us need to take a step back from this situation for a bit and cool off. The worst that WMS can do is attack this wiki, and if he does, we can just report it to Wikia. There's no need for us to take any sort of action at the moment, as I don't see that he's done anything to provoke it. Blocking him now would show that we're reactionary, irrational and insecure, and that we would rather kick someone out then try to work with them thoughtfully. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 22:58, January 23, 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with LiR. An asking is a more friendly solution than a warning. All the glitches he wrote about are what caused this. I don't really think that's really wrong, but I don't think it's right either. Maybe he could write one on his blog or under Tutorial: namespace?  Nikel  Talk  23:22, January 23, 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the reason WH delete the glitch article is because the author, WinMacSims3 is requested himself. I will talk with WinMacSims3 about this issue on his wiki. Wiryawan310 02:13, January 24, 2012 (UTC)

Adam Sandler anons.
As some of you may have noticed, 20+ (at the time of writing) IP addresses have been blocked for spam. The majority of them have been inserting "Adam Sandler" into their edits in one form or another. Most of these have been identified as proxies based on their IP data and the fact that so many different IPs across different ranges and locations have been used.

Basically, this post is to say that if any administrators see anyone engaging in the Adam Sandler spam, they should block immediately and users should try and report any Sandler-spam edits to an admin. They've said through several IPs that they're "low on proxies" yet they've come back with more so I'm unsure how long these attacks will last. 01:33, January 30, 2012 (UTC)


 * Have used Special:Contact to notify Wikia about this. Dharden (talk) 02:19, January 30, 2012 (UTC)
 * I just hope they can do something to stop this. WH told me on IRC that he tried to blacklist "Adam Sandler" as a term. From the looks of it, he wasn't able to but I'm guessing that it'll be added to the blacklist for this wiki or something. 02:24, January 30, 2012 (UTC)
 * It turns out that we don't have the extension to blacklist things, and wikia only grants it in extreme cases and on large wikis (15k+ pages). In the meantime wait for the S:C reply and protect all the pages they make from creation. I have to head off for a few hours so don't expect a response from me until ~ 7:00 UTC. That said we might be able to get the extension (its called Abuse filter IIRC) but it is very complicated, and is probably more trouble than it is worth.
 * I'm presently on #wikia-vstf trying to get some help... Looking at recent changes, it looks like it has stopped, at least for now, unless I'm missing something. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 02:48, January 30, 2012 (UTC)
 * Update After talking to the VSTF on their IRC, they've temporarily blocked editing by unregistered contributors. Hopefully that will deter that spammer, though it also means that in the meantime, no anons will be able to edit. I'll be announcing it shortly in Community Corner. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 02:55, January 30, 2012 (UTC)
 * If they disabled unregistered contributors to edit, we can't tell if the spam have ceased. I suppose it will be a temporary timeout for the spammer.  Nikel  Talk  06:57, January 30, 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the idea is similar to when we block anon users... VSTF knows that the user can just wait out the block, but are probably hoping that they get bored beforehand and just give up. If not, we'll have to go back to VSTF and look for a more permanent solution. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 07:00, January 30, 2012 (UTC)
 * yes, the block is not a solution. I believe VSTF will find a solution for this spam like adding a chapta for anon user if want to edit, etc. note: no, I missed the blocking party by wh and gg... lol Wiryawan310 07:31, January 30, 2012 (UTC)
 * Just a note - all admins who are opped on the IRC channel have been sent a message regarding this, so be sure to sign in and read it :)
 * I'm not sure that adding a captcha would do anything other than slow the vandal down. That and I'd imagine that sort of thing would have to be added to MediaWiki, which isn't something VSTF can do. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 07:36, January 30, 2012 (UTC)
 * I can imagine that Wikia Staff would possibly do the same thing as VSTF in this case. I doubt we'll get the AbuseFilter due to our wiki being considered as one of the smaller ones. If anyone catches the spam once the temporary site-wide protection ends or when the IP blocks are over, they should alert VSTF ASAP. 08:44, January 30, 2012 (UTC)

poop vandalism
Guys, I notice that someone has vandalize this wiki with same pattern, the vandal write "poop" on the article. I suspect the vandal using proxies because I see this and this have different ip and if I dont wrong, I remember there is more vandalism with "poop" but I cant find it... how we can deal with it? Wiryawan310 02:41, February 5, 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, no. Not again. You mean like the Adam Sandler spammer and many other proxy spammers again?  Nikel  Talk  03:02, February 5, 2012 (UTC)
 * If I'm correct, you find this pattern of vandalism too and give a warning right? Wiryawan310 03:05, February 5, 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems much more limited than before. I say we just wait and see. Proxy attacks like we experienced before are very rare, so I'm more likely to believe that the incidents are unrelated. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 03:18, February 5, 2012 (UTC)
 * The first IP is on BellSouth.net, which are a common ISP in the US while the second one, despite not being read as a proxy, is on "Speed of Light Broadband". I've never heard of them either but they could just be a smaller ISP. As for the vandalism pattern, "poop" is a pretty common term used across multiple wikis for vandalism so I'm guessing these guys are unrelated, also considering that the first instance was on a Player Stories page while the second was in the Mainspace. 10:46, February 5, 2012 (UTC)

Tempblock redux
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)

User:4nders
According this and this edit, I see has no interest to change his behavior on this wiki after the block and its look like he is here only to troll. I recommend we give him permanent block because his unacceptable behavior and profanity that we can see from his userpage. Wiryawan310 15:06, March 28, 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed, this user is proud of their behavior, so I don't see any potential for reform. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 15:14, March 28, 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm looking at this again, and I think we should give him one more chance. All he has done since his block ended is brag about being blocked which, while certainly not constructive, isn't against any rules. I say until he starts swearing again or doing things he's not supposed to do, we just ignore him. But if he does any of that stuff, then I say infinite block. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 15:28, March 28, 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't see much hope for this guy either but I also think we should hold back on a permanent block until he crosses that line once more. 19:15, March 28, 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm tempted to just hand out a perma-ban right here and now, but anything he can do can easily be reverted, so I suppose giving one more chance couldn't hurt too much either.
 * So, the conclusion is we will give 1 last chance to this user. Another bad thing and he gone forever from this wiki. Wiryawan310 10:47, March 29, 2012 (UTC)

User:Yara124
has done absolutely nothing constructive for the wiki. Her disruptive edits include claiming she knows another user which that user later denied, changing the correct spelling of words like "Jock" to something that's incorrect and claiming it's a fix, making unnecessary format modifications and most recently today, blanked and vandalised a page. I have tried to help her in the past whilst assuming her edits were made in good faith but now it seems unlikely that her behavior is going to change and I feel this user should be permanently blocked, but of course not without the opinions of other administrators. 15:24, April 4, 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm sure that user here is only to vandalize. the last edit of that user is blanking a page clearly show that. I agree for permanent block. Wiryawan310 15:27, April 4, 2012 (UTC)


 * Agreed. She didn't just blank the page for Showtime, she claimed the Pack didn't exist. Given the rest of her history, I take that as an indication that she is deliberately acting in bad faith. I issued a 1-day block in accordance with The Sims Wiki:Policy/General Policies, but agree with giving her the boot. Dharden (talk) 15:52, April 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * And booted, she is. Her lack of willingness to turn her behavior around does nothing but strengthen the justification of her permanent block. 17:05, April 4, 2012 (UTC)

84.235.57.173
I've given a one-day block -- see the deleted contributions for why. I'm hoping whoever it is will get bored and Go Away. Dharden (talk) 12:44, April 6, 2012 (UTC)
 * What a life this guy leads. :| But yeah, we should just hope they'll get bored of waiting out the block and not bother at all. 13:09, April 6, 2012 (UTC)
 * Seems this guy came back and did the same thing. I've given a 3 day block...for now and create protected the main fake stuff pack article, seeing as that's the catalyst in all of this guy's deleted contributions and edits to Katy Perry. 18:53, April 10, 2012 (UTC)
 * I protected Katy Perry page for 2 weeks to prevent her freak/obsessed fan doing something weird again. The page is about a real life 5 star celebrity in sim form, so no wonder there is a fan like that... O.o Wiryawan310 00:51, April 11, 2012 (UTC)

'Allah' Vandal
Today an unregistered contributor, first at this address then at this one, edited several user pages as well as The Sims Wiki:Report, replacing the content of those pages with all-caps text, including references to Allah and, on at least one occasion, Sactage. Since the user was able to evade the first block and edit again, I've gone ahead and blocked the whole 216.66.xx.xx range. Keep your eyes open to see if this vandal evades the range block as well. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 18:14, April 13, 2012 (UTC)
 * Im agree to block this range. this is extraordinary vandalism! Cursing and swearing under GOD name is very serious case! it is the worst vandalism that ever happen. blocking the range for 1 or 3 month is better. Wiryawan310 02:02, April 14, 2012 (UTC)
 * It isn't the content of the vandalism that warrants a block, it's the fact that the vandal evaded the original block on their IP address, as well as the nature of the vandalism (replacing the entire page with all-caps vandalism, versus some 'minor' vandalism). And I would hardly say that this is the worst vandalism ever, because we've had much worse... -  LostInRiverview talk · blog 09:17, April 14, 2012 (UTC)
 * The block should just remain as it is rather than making it long term. Chances are they'll never come back anyway. As for worst vandalism, we have indeed had much worse. Adam Sandler caused the wiki to be locked from anonymous editing and that's just one example... 10:00, April 14, 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree, we should keep the length as-is. I also recall some porn videos or pictures, as well as a video of a very gruesome physical assault that was posted up here... all of those I would classify as worse than this particular incident. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 19:39, April 14, 2012 (UTC)

User:Daniel92234 and related IP addresses
As some admins are aware, was permanently blocked for his disruptive behaviour following his warning regarding content removal. This user has used 3 IP addresses (to date) all belonging to different service providers. whatismyipaddress.com reports that 50.134.161.235 belongs to Comcast, 174.232.137.80 belongs to Verizon Wireless (possibly a mobile phone or a 3G dongle of some sort) and 174.16.43.13 belongs to Qwest/CenturyLink. The Comcast and Qwest IPs both geolocate to different parts of Colorado while the VZW address doesn't have a state assigned, though that could be due to it being a cellular address.

As it stands, this guy is seemingly shifting between IP ranges and service providers (that's what happens when you don't secure your wi-fi). Currently it's useless blocking any IP ranges as it would be redundant if this guy is going to jump from one provider to another. Until he uses subsequent IP addresses on the same range with the same type of vandalism, I suggest blocking the IPs individually. It's worth noting that mobile networks use either carrier grade NAT (basically meaning that a large number of users, potentially in different parts of the US, are accessing from one IP address) or dynamic IP addresses meaning that a rangeblock could cause quite a bit of collateral damage but we'll see how it goes. 16:42, April 20, 2012 (UTC)

User:Jmcmillin
A week may seem long for an initial block, but given this user's pattern of behavior, including deleted contributions, I think he rates it. Dharden (talk) 20:22, April 28, 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't get to see his deleted video (I probably wouldn't have wanted to either) but this guy does seem persistent on inserting false information and trying to get his own way around things. The block seems fine. 22:12, April 28, 2012 (UTC)
 * If he does it again after the block is up, should we escalate the blocks, or go straight to a permanent block? Dharden (talk) 23:16, April 28, 2012 (UTC)
 * If he persists in the same pattern of vandalism then the chances are that he's not actually here to write about anything else, meaning we may as well just cut him loose completely and go for the indefinite block. 23:55, April 28, 2012 (UTC)
 * Works for me. Dharden (talk) 00:35, April 29, 2012 (UTC)

User:Spongeblock66
has received two blocks for vandalism and inserting false information. To me, these edits are either in retaliation to being told what not to do or just simply ignorance of our policies. I think we should take a "Three strikes and you're out" approach to this user, meaning that we should give him a final warning (that goes with his current block) and if he acts up again, we'll just give him his third block, which will be indefinite. Thoughts? 11:03, May 9, 2012 (UTC)