The Sims Wiki talk:Admin Portal

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

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


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

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

Weekly Facebook page stats

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

November 8, 2010


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

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

"Goth Family Leak" Blog
I think we should delete this blog as it claims very questionable information with no proof. I don't think it's right for a user to mislead other users as in that case. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 16:21, November 12, 2010 (UTC)

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

Top 10
Attn. Admins,

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


 * Update

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

Vandal IP
I believe that a single person living in or around London, UK has been using multiple IP addresses (specifically 92.27.218.130 and 89.243.165.132) to vandalize here on TSW. The two IPs (both of which have already received blocks for their behavior) are located in the general London area: and have made identical styles of vandalism, consisting of going to articles about Sims and inserting highly incorrect information into the infobox. Examples:.

As a result, I encourage all administrators who notice this variety of vandalism to identify the IP address of the vandal, ascertain where it is located globally (I use this website) and to immediately block any such vandal committing this type of vandalism who is located in or around London. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 22:19, December 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * A new one that was blocked by Dharden - Special:Contributions/92.27.233.96 - which has made the same kind of vandal edits and also lives in London. It's safe to say that all three of these IPs is the same person. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 20:23, December 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * A new one: 92.27.252.185. Considering a range block of all IP addresses from the 92.27.xxx.xxx range, but we'll play things as needed and see how it goes. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 10:18, December 27, 2010 (UTC)

List of vandal IPs
Borrowing a page from Duskey's book, I've made a table:

I will add to it if more IPs show up. Given current pattern, won't necessarily see another similar IP come up for a couple days. It may be that the user's IP address automatically changes every couple days, but who knows? --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 10:32, December 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * Patterns
 * All located in London, UK.
 * Very similar editing style.
 * Repeat many kinds of vandalism (changing caption to 'hi i'm ', use of the word 'inserted,' other factors).
 * Vandal does not immediately return after being blocked.
 * Targets both well-known and more obscure Sims (more obscure being Camilla Fortescue, Beau Merik and Polly Maloney, among others).

New IPs
A new range of IP addresses; 2.102.xx.xx ; has been participating in the same pattern of vandalism. However, this range has also taken to editing userpages. Here's the table:

Given that this vandalism is generally more annoying than damaging, I don't think this requires much action other than revert, block, ignore. -  LostInRiverview talk · blog 16:11, January 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, the 2.102 IPs are also coming from the UK. WHOIS reports are saying that the 2.102.*.* range and the 92.27.*.* are both on "Opal Telecom", which from my understanding, owns a UK ISP known as TalkTalk. Seeing as the 2.102 range is the only one that is still attacking, there is a chance that this may possibly be the same person, given the similar edits and edit summaries. Also, asking for a rangeblock may be problematic as TalkTalk/Opal Telecom is one of the largest ISPs in the UK, which means hundreds or even thousands of potential editors may be affected. GG   (t)  •  (c)  •  (b)  21:03, February 9, 2011 (UTC)
 * I have blocked 2.102.0.0/16 for a short period of time to prevent the attacks (it seems we can block IP ranges). GG   (t)  •  (c)  •  (b)  21:30, February 9, 2011 (UTC)
 * I've restored the block, but have moved to allow users within that range to register accounts and post on their talk pages. This way, we stop vandalism edits to pages, while still allowing legitimate users to register. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 23:21, February 10, 2011 (UTC)
 * 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
''Note: This discussion space is intended mainly for administrators only. Non-administrator comments may be kept or deleted based on length, relevance and content; non-admins posting here should not try to persuade the admins (at this location) but should only state facts relevant to the topic at hand.''

This topic is a sister topic to the discussion occurring here. A separate discussion has been established here with the express purpose of determining whether the administration of TSW will consent to a possible move, if that move has been likewise consented to by the community at-large. With that in mind, this space is now open for administrators to give their opinions and perspectives. -  LostInRiverview talk · blog 04:35, December 22, 2010 (UTC)


 * I was the one who suggested the merge at the Community Portal. I believe that a merge with the Fanon Wiki will be very beneficial to this wiki. For a list of reasons, see the link above. Also, take a look at this. A user named K9underdogg added a story to the Don Lothario/Player stories article. They added many pictures to illustrate their story, and they are already getting their edits reverted. I'm not sure if we have a policy against adding pictures to a player stories article, but if we merged with the Fanon Wiki, K9underdogg could just create a Fanon:Don Lothario article, and write their story in much more depth and detail, along with much more freedom. Thus, a merge with the Fanon Wiki could make this wiki much more productive and friendlier, as users would have the freedom to create a story in an article anyway that they want, without getting their edits reverted. Thank you. :) — Random Ranaun ( Talk to me! ) 05:05, December 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * (O.T.) That particular user story was quite a bit more graphic than most written here... I think that's the reason for its reversion. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 05:26, December 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Still, I believe users should have the freedom of writing their stories (unless it's really graphic, like including nudity and/or sex), and wikia users are supposed to be 13 and up (I think), so they should be mature enough to deal with subjects like those depicted. So, merging with the Fanon Wiki would probably help this situation, as K9underdogg could write their story in a Fanon article, instead of a player stories one, albeit probably warning the warning about its graphic content via a notice at the top. — Random Ranaun ( Talk to me! ) 05:34, December 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * I think a merge would be good because users are always trying to create fanon on here and when they realize they can't make fanon here it seems that they "leave".But, a merge proposal has been done before and the result was not to merge.So,instead of merging maybe make this wiki a place for fanon content too?,For example:The Spore Wiki has content already from the game and user created stuff. Monster2821 talk 07:05, December 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * That is basically what we are trying to do. If we merge with the Fanon Wiki, we would create a Fanon namespace to place the articles, a Fanon portal, to act as a main page for the fanon side of the wiki, and we appoint some Fanon administrators, probably the administrators for the Fanon Wiki. So, if we merge with the Fanon Wiki like this, we would have a place for normal content on the wiki, and a place for fanon content on the wiki. — Random Ranaun ( Talk to me! ) 12:58, December 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * In all fairness, a decision by the community to do or not do something is not permanent and can be re-evaluated from time to time as the wiki's membership and group dynamics change. What earlier may have been unpopular could now receive support, or what was once popular could now be unsupported, and locking the community into a decision like that really takes the power away from them. The vote that happened eight months ago set the guideline... this proposal is an attempt to adjust that guideline, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with the community deciding to do that. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 18:32, December 22, 2010 (UTC)


 * The proposal being discussed in the Community Portal isn't for a merger, but a new namespace, though it might give the Fanon Wiki's content a place to go if a decision to merge is ever made. Dharden (talk) 16:23, December 29, 2010 (UTC)

Community Consensus
Since the time has nearly ended for community consensus on the Fanon Namespace proposal, it's starting to be much more clear how the community feels about the idea, and whether the community has consented to it or not. It's not as simple as a majority; if 51% supports an idea, that's still 49% that don't, and that's a huge minority. In this case, at the time there are 14 persons who have given their opinions, ranging from strong support to strong opposition for the proposal. They fall along these lines:
 * 7 give "strong support"
 * 4 give "support"
 * 0 are neutral
 * 1 gives "opposition"
 * 2 give "strong opposition"

If you go by a simple support/oppose dichotomy, then 11 of 14 persons have shown support for the proposal. When calculated out, that is 78.6% of the community (who have spoken up) in support. But that also means that 21.4% of the community that has spoken up opposes this idea.

If you want to look at it a little harder, and assume the generalization that 'support' is a weaker form of support than 'strong support' (and the same for opposition), then you can give an arbitrary weight to the support and opposition depending on the strength of the opposition or support. If, for example, we treat any support of the proposal as a positive and an opposition as a negative, and give a weight of '1' for support and '2' for strong support, as well as '-1' for opposition and '-2' for strong support, you get this:

(-2*2)+(-1*1)+(0)+(4*1)+(7*2)= +13

It's pretty likely that I'm severely over-analyzing this, but the question still remains; if the numbers remain the same, has the community given consensus or not? Obviously we still have a couple days going, but if nothing really changes, what has the community decided? --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 22:08, January 17, 2011 (UTC)

Layout Builder
Someone here at TSW requested that the Layout Builder be activated, but Wikia has requested that this action be given the thumbs-up from the rest of the administrators. I'm not sure if they plan on shutting it off if we don't respond, so I'd rather we make some decision rather quickly. More information on the Layout Builder can be seen on this blog.

What do you all think about this; should we participate in the test? --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 06:23, January 14, 2011 (UTC)


 * Why not? If it lets us have a standard layout for Sims, another for families/households, another for objects, etc., it'd be useful. Dharden (talk) 16:27, January 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, why not? Besides, if we add on a Fanon Namespace, we could use that as a way to easily create the Fanon content pages. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 18:57, January 14, 2011 (UTC)


 * I think I'm in love! I've done a draft of a family page, check it out. There are some things missing from the dropdown lists, mostly console stuff. --a_morris (talk) 22:57, January 14, 2011 (UTC)

User:FatimaSimovichHleb
Given this user's attitude, behavior, and lack of constructive edits, I don't think she's going to straighten up after a 3-day block -- or at all. While I don't like going straight to an infinite block, I think it may be justified here. Dharden (talk) 19:10, January 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see much hope in improvement here either. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 16:42, January 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * I have the same opinion as LostInRiverview and Dharden. --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 16:44, January 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * Important note: She posted a link to a pornographic picture. -- BobNewbie talk • blog 16:49, January 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, and that's not very constructive at all. --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 16:53, January 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * User is now permanently blocked. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 16:55, January 29, 2011 (UTC)

CheckUser confirmed sockpuppets - admin assistance requested
After seeing in the account creation log, I was suspicious that this user was related to  or. I requested a CheckUser for confirmation.

It appears these users are the same person:



I noticed that Flopflop was used to evade the Smrtgrl888 block and had posted the same block notice on Auror's talk page, whereas Simsgirl2010 has been used for some good faith editing.

I have posted this so that the admins can decide whether or not a block on all of the users is needed - as I can see mixed editing history. GG  (t)  •  (c)  •  (b)  15:53, February 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * Based on past precedent and current guidelines, I would say that a block of these five accounts for sockpuppeting would be appropriate. I'd like some administrator agreement with this before any blocks are made, however. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 15:58, February 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. IMO, using a sock to evade a block is blockworthy, even if the sock doesn't make inappropriate edits. Dharden (talk) 16:55, February 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * All users are now permanently blocked. GG   (t)  •  (c)  •  (b)  19:50, February 1, 2011 (UTC)


 * I have reason to believe that Flopflop is another account of . She logged in on the IRC as Bvbfan1, quit, and rejoined with the account name Flopflop in the Whois. Then, she quit the Bvbfan1 account before changing the other account which was the user Flopflop, blackveilbridefa (BVBfa...), change her name to Bvbfan1. This makes it HIGHLY likely that Flopflop and Bvbfan1 are related accounts. -- BobNewbie talk • blog 19:00, February 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * The Checkuser had never found to be related to, so I'm not sure how we should go about this. My suggestion for now is to monitor Bvbfan1 to see if there are any similarities with the blocked accounts.  GG   (t)  •  (c)  •  (b)  19:55, February 6, 2011 (UTC)


 * As some of us know (Georgie, RR, Auror) she has recently threatened users on the IRC, saying things like she was going to sockpuppet, amongst other things. She also said she was 12, which if I remember right is one of the reasons one of the users above got blocked, which is another point of note though not a big one, as it may not be valid. I know the IRC and wiki is mainly unrelated, though this fuels the idea that Bvbfan1 is a sock. -- BobNewbie talk • blog 21:50, February 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * I have contacted Wikia to see if they can do another check. Before acting, we should wait for them to email me the CU results. GG   (t)  •  (c)  •  (b)  21:54, February 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * The CU has found no relation between and . The CU had also pointed out that Flopflop may have been impersonating bvbfan1, so we should take that into account.  GG   (t)  •  (c)  •  (b)  06:51, February 7, 2011 (UTC)
 * That is very possible. When I asked Bvbfan1 a week or so ago on the IRC to prove that it was her by saying hi on my userpage, she said her mom said she may not edit anymore, though she (the real one) edited yesterday. -- BobNewbie talk • blog 12:40, February 7, 2011 (UTC)

So to wrap things up here - Bvbfan1 is unrelated to Flopflop or any other socks and the CheckUser suggested possible impersonation. *!*@unaffiliated/bvbfan1 was banned from the IRC channel yesterday and all socks are blocked. I guess for now, we'll have to watch the wiki and IRC channel for any trouble, especially those with an unaffiliated cloak (as we have banned a couple of users with those). GG  (t)  •  (c)  •  (b)  16:04, February 7, 2011 (UTC)


 * Yupp. -- BobNewbie talk • blog 17:05, February 7, 2011 (UTC)

Usage of real life images in fanon
Today, I had deleted many images uploaded by which were used on Fanon:The Applewhites. The images were a possible invasion of privacy and were in fact removed from the page by the author not long after he had added them. He never tagged the images for deletion, so I had deleted them as they were being used like the wiki was an image hosting site. I had blocked the user for this but then realised that this wasn't a rule, so I undid the block.

The reason I am bringing this up is - should we have a rule about uploading real life images to the wiki for usage in fanon? Personally I would say no as it can breach the privacy of other people and the fanon namespace is suppossed to be about Sims fanon anyway and having those images would be like image hosting. I would like other administrators to voice their opinions on this.  GG  Talk  17:23, February 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll copy this over to The Sims Wiki talk:Fanon Portal for community discussion. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 17:28, February 26, 2011 (UTC)

Return of the Digimon spam
The spammer's IP was 118.137.75.47, and the articles spammed were Hunger and The Sims 3: Late Night. Edits were reverted and IP was given a 1-day block. Dharden (talk) 13:39, March 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * The Whois data tells me the basic information for this IP. I urge admins and rollbackers to look out for IPs on the 118.137.*.* range and any other ranges that they have a suspicion on (as the 2.102 user managed to change ranges).  GG  Talk  15:51, March 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * Also keep in mind that the previous round of Digimon spam was from 118.137.*.* . Dharden (talk) 16:23, March 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * If need be, we can assign a range block if the situation worsens (it seems that administators can set range blocks without contacting Wikia staff).  GG  Talk  17:52, March 2, 2011 (UTC)

It's back again. 118.137.18.146 spammed Vampire (The Sims 3). Edit has been reverted, and the IP had been blocked for one week. Dharden (talk) 14:31, June 20, 2011 (UTC)
 * From what I've seen, this looks like an attacker who will come here once, get blocked and not appear for a while, thinking that we'll forget. I'd advise everyone to look out for the 118.137.*.* range and any suspicious edits they make. 15:38, June 20, 2011 (UTC)

User:Bvbfan1 and User:Allison386
I was made aware on IRC by Auror and Random Ranaun that had left the wiki and announced it through [http://sims.wikia.com/wiki/User_blog:Bvbfan1/about_the_sims_wiki...has_A_LOT_2_do_about_sims!!! this blog]. It also seemed that had joined the wiki and had showed some very similar traits to Bvbfan1 (such as the grammar, blogging habits and requests for help with userboxes).

Per this evidence, I had requested a Checkuser who had said that both accounts have used the same IP, same computer, same browser. Here is the response from Wikia:

"I've checked both users and they're both using the same IP, and they both also used the same exact browser. Obviously there is no way to tell if they are definitely the same person, but it looks likely that it was at the very least the same computer, and combined with the behavior of both accounts, you can make a decision on whether they are the same person." - FWIW, Grunny was the CU in this case.

Personally, I think that Bvbfan1 may have created a new account to make the warnings about her behaviour on her talk page seem redundant. Allison has created blogs that have been deleted due to the content (deleted contribs.) and if you compare both userpages, they look alike.

While this isn't as bad as block evasion, I think that a block is needed as this is warning evasion. I'd suggest maybe a permanant block on the Bvbfan1 account and a shorter yet harsh block on the Allison386 account but I would like other administrators opinions before any blocking takes place.  GG  Talk  10:59, March 6, 2011 (UTC)


 * I would like to mention another thing that links both accounts together. On Bvbfan1's page, she says:

i am also a bit lazy and am perfectly happy sitting next to a computer on girlsgogames.com, in which i am called allison386.

That almost 100% proves it further, unless another user picked the name and precise number, which is very unlikely. BobNewbie talk • blog 12:53, March 6, 2011 (UTC)


 * (Caveat: Posting Before Coffee) I can support a permanent block on the Bvbfan1 account. If Bvbfan1 is just shifting to another account, blocking the BVbfan1 account would be appropriate. However, Allison386 is claiming to be new, while the Bvbfan1 account was created on Nov. 18, 2010. So, if they are the same person, and that seems likely, then this could be considered an attempt at sockpuppetry, as well as an attempt to evade warnings. Dharden (talk) 14:44, March 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * I have issued a permanent block on the Bvbfan1 account for now. As for Allison, I have noticed that she has left hit and run "hello" messages on a few talk pages. I think a short block, if not longer, may be appropriate for Allison but again, I would like another administrator to voice their opinion on blocking Allison.  GG  Talk  14:59, March 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, this edit confirms that there is some kind of relation, regardless of Checkuser evidence, which has proven that they have used the same computer.  GG  Talk  15:05, March 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * Followed by IRC consenseus in regards to the block period, I have decided to block Allison for 3 weeks and giver her a final warning. Any accounts she creates in this time should be blocked in addition to her main account permanently.  GG  Talk  06:51, March 7, 2011 (UTC)
 * As I had to hurry off earlier, I forgot to add suggestions on what to do if she makes another account. Users: If you suspect any account of being related to these 2 users through behavioural evidence, report it to an admin. Admins: Before requesting Checkuser, look at the behavioural evidence, if they behave exactly the same, then they probably are the same. If you are unsure, try asking another admin for a second opionon. If after that you are still unsure, feel free to request a Checkuser. Feel free to contact me if you need any help/guidance with this issue.  GG  Talk  15:54, March 7, 2011 (UTC)

Possible socks
I have some reasons to believe that the users CrazyCrazy555 and Simcrazy246 are related. Both have joined on similar times, both have Crazy in their names, and SimCrazy has left a message containing:

"Its simcrazy246 by the way whats a fanon? i don't know 'cause im new!"

That seems a lot like s/he is trying to convince the community. They both only make fanon (which are all of low-quality) and upload completely off-topic images at times.

So far, nothing bad has been done, though I would like to ask any admins to ask for checkuser via Special:Contact if one of these accounts commit vandalism, spam, or anything of those sorts. Thanks. -- Zombie talk • blog 18:22, April 7, 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll contact Wikia now. I'll post the results when I get a reply. 19:45, April 7, 2011 (UTC)
 * According to the checkuser, neither of the accounts have shared any IP addresses. It has not been said if any proxies are in use or if the owner has changed IPs every time they wish to use an alternate account. For now, I can't see any action to be taken but if another administrator wants to do something regarding this situation, then it's their choice. 14:05, April 8, 2011 (UTC)

I know I'm bumping this but an IRC user named had appeared to be on the same IP range as CC555 and had some very similar traits. Uberfuzzy has confirmed that they are on the same computer. RothGoth has been permanently blocked while 92.12.0.0/16 has been blocked for a month. 21:32, May 8, 2011 (UTC)

Bureaucrat absence
I will be inactive or semi-active for an indeterminate amount of time, not to exceed the rest of my school semester (May 14, 2011). This is due to my job, involvements and academics, which are consuming most of my time on a daily basis. I may stop by on weekends, but I may also choose just to sleep :p. If you need help from an administrator or bureaucrat, please contact a more active administrator while I am gone. Thanks for understanding. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 05:55, April 8, 2011 (UTC)

User:Riestorar
I have blocked for a week for their contributions and deleted contributions. I'm now starting to think that one week was too generous and I don't think that this user is going to show much in terms of improvement. Before I extend the block, I would like the opinions of other administrators. 20:58, April 15, 2011 (UTC)
 * And I have just removed the ability for this user to edit their talk page after pointlessly abusing that privalige. 21:22, April 15, 2011 (UTC)
 * I think a second oppurtunity could be given, though I don't think it will result, but at least we could try. If they keep their behaviour like this, a ban would be the best option. Also they're create too much blogs, and seems like spam, in my opinion, all of them should be deleted. Thank you. --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 21:24, April 15, 2011 (UTC)
 * Although, a harsh block could be already issued for spamming, profanity, personal attacks. Thank you. --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 21:35, April 15, 2011 (UTC)
 * I think what A_morris mentioned here about editing restrictions may be a good idea for this guy so we can work to prevent further abuse from this user. We could restrict him to a certain number of forum edits per week or restrict him from using the forums completely. 21:50, April 15, 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a good suggestion. Thank you --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 21:56, April 15, 2011 (UTC)
 * This guy has just made a sockpuppet, which warrants a permanent block for both accounts. 17:33, April 16, 2011 (UTC)

User:Ĺаncer1289
There has been an issue with. They have spammed many templates to direct users to the Mass Effect Wiki. It appears to be an imposter of this user, as you'll notice the different starting character on the TSW version of this user. A different user has done the same thing on the Motorstorm Wiki, so it's very likely that they're connected. I have reported this to VSTF but I insist that we look out for users who are spamming links to other wikis, particulary the Mass Effect Wiki. 10:56, April 30, 2011 (UTC)
 * Note to all admins: If you see the real Lancer1289 (without the weird L character) on this wiki, do not block him as he is not the same user. 11:02, April 30, 2011 (UTC)

User:Simul8or
has done very little to improve the wiki. His contributions range from spamming to falsely accusing admins of abuse. Currently, Simul8or is under a one week block but I doubt he'll improve much when his block expires, as according to BobNewbie, Simul8or allegedly spammed TSW's Facebook page.

Before any false accusations come in about being a sock, I insist that you compare the contributions as the latter does seem to be working hard to improve the wiki and I highly doubt that s/he is the same user as Simul8or. I suggest that we only take action if The SIMulator starts to act like Simul8or.

Back to Simul8or, I personally think that we should permanently block him as he has done very little good and seems to be continuing to cause trouble via community features that are based off-wiki. 19:54, May 7, 2011 (UTC)
 * Give Simul8or a final warning, and if they set a toe out of line, issue a permanent ban. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 20:13, May 7, 2011 (UTC)
 * (added) I do want to make sure that it's clear - criticism of administrators/bureaucrats is OK. However, unfounded criticism is not, which is what this user has been doing. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 20:14, May 7, 2011 (UTC)
 * I doubt that Simul8or had any reason for being here other than trolling and causing trouble. IMO, if they haven't already earned a permanent block, they've earned a final warning. Dharden (talk) 20:40, May 7, 2011 (UTC)
 * I definitely agree with Dharden. A final warning or a ban is a good option. --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 20:43, May 7, 2011 (UTC)
 * Simul8or has recieved his last warning. Anything after that will go to a permanent block. 22:12, May 7, 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll give notice here if he makes another unfounded comment about Wiki admins on our Facebook page. Zombie talk •  blog 08:17, May 8, 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.

There has been a vandal known as meep_sheep going around wikia and uploading pornographic images to the background. As a precaution, both Meep_Sheep and .Meep_.sheep. have received permanent blocks, after discussion on the matter on the IRC. They have also used names such as MeepS and Peehspeem, so please be cautious around users with a name resembling any of the names above. In the meantime, VSTF has been contacted and the accounts are being disabled across wikia. See this blog on iCarly wiki for more information. --W H  (Talk) 05:42, May 15, 2011 (UTC)
 * Similar to that case with the guy impersonating an admin on the Mass Effect Wiki. I'm sure VSTF would have blocked their IP range across Wikia for a little while but we should still keep an eye out. 10:37, May 15, 2011 (UTC)
 * I have heard that VSTF has caught up with this user, bu they have struck before. For now, this issue is over, but we should keep an eye out. --W H  (Talk) 01:38, May 22, 2011 (UTC)

83.149.0.0/16
Various IPs on this range have been causing issues on this wiki recently, mainly related to creating inappropriate pages and vandalising fanon made by KnucklesTheSim. The range is currently blocked for two weeks to try and stop this issue. I urge any user who notices any nonsense from this range to report it while admins shouldn't hesitate to give out a longer rangeblock. 18:11, May 27, 2011 (UTC)

User:Thecutofmyjib
I have blocked for their contributions, particulary for the userpage vandalism. Based on their remaining contributions and their deleted contributions, I doubt that we're going to see much, if any improvement in this user. Before a permanent block is issued, I would like to know what other administrators think. 22:11, June 2, 2011 (UTC)


 * I think this user rates a permanent block. Dharden (talk) 02:15, June 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. --W H  (Talk) 05:05, June 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * Thecutofmyjib has made no constructive contributions at all and has been given a permanent block. 09:56, June 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with this decision, though I do think that some admins had a negative behaviour towards them seeing some of the blog comments in one of his spam made blogs instead of deleting it as spam, I personally think we could handle it better if we avoid hostility. Thank you. --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 16:47, June 3, 2011 (UTC)

User:Tunrettopyrrah
This user was at first using the account, User:Not my daughter you bitch!, which I blocked for an inappropriate username. They then used the account User:Tunrettopyrrah to vandalise my userpages. I have given them a two week block. --W H  (Talk) 09:20, June 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * Alright. In the future, note that you don't need to worry about reporting every block you make. Just make sure you write up an adequate block summary, and you're ok. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 11:28, June 4, 2011 (UTC)

User:C-Star123
I have noticed that was given another block today for vandalism. Looking through their contributions, I have very little doubt that this user will improve their behaviour, as all they seem to be here for is to vandalise. I think that a permanent block is a good option here but I would like to hear what other administrators think first. 22:22, June 16, 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree that a permanent block is in order for this user, and have issued one. Dharden (talk) 23:12, June 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * I also agree. --W H  (Talk) 05:02, June 17, 2011 (UTC)
 * I also think there's no other way around. Guilherme Guerreiro [[File:Thanks rose.png]]( talk here ) 13:11, June 17, 2011 (UTC)
 * They were clearly here only to vandalise and do nothing constructive, hence the permanent block. 13:19, June 17, 2011 (UTC)

Meadowview
has created mainspace articles about this neighborhood, which Sumaes01 reports is downloadable from Mod The Sims. Therefore, it doesn't belong in the mainspace, but what should be done with it -- delete or move to the Fanon namespace? Dharden (talk) 02:44, June 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, it would be hard to manage as a fanon, as the person who created it wouldn't be the owner of the article. I have seen one article about a downloaded neighborhood in the fanon namespace, but that was ade by the person who created the content. Personally, I think that it should be deleted. --<font face="Trebuchet MS" color="black">W H  (Talk) 04:58, June 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not opposed to the deletion. 06:09, June 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * It doesn't really belong anywhere, honestly. If the creator of the neighborhood had created it, that would be a different story, but presently it looks as if deletion might be the answer. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 10:38, June 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * I have moved the article to the fanon namespace, is that a negative solution? Thank you. -- Guilherme Guerreiro [[File:Thanks rose.png]]( talk here ) 10:40, June 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with LiR. I understand that the move to the fanon namespace was in good faith but the page wasn't made by the creator of the neighborhood. I wouldn't mind if it had stayed if that was the case but it isn't. I still support the deletion but I'd rather wait for further input regarding the move. 11:04, June 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * Now I understand what happened, since it's not their creation, I also support the deletion of the page and related ones. -- Guilherme Guerreiro [[File:Thanks rose.png]]( talk here ) 11:06, June 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * As I have seen no opposition, I have deleted the article. 11:10, June 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * What about its related articles? -- Guilherme Guerreiro [[File:Thanks rose.png]]( talk here ) 11:15, June 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * I have deleted them. Dharden (talk) 12:20, June 27, 2011 (UTC)

In a note on my talk page, Limegreen5 says that they did create Meadowview. I have invited them to come here and make a case for restoring the articles. Dharden (talk) 12:28, June 27, 2011 (UTC)

Dear Everyone,

I did create Meadowview I made it on my Sims 2 game. It is not on Mod The Sims but I've been doing research and thinking of making it a downloadible neighborhood.I'm sorry I put it on the Sims Wiki Main Page because I am new to The Sims Wiki so I thought it was okay to do that. If I get the restored pages back then I will change it to Fanon: Meadowview, also I will change all its characters to Fanon:(whatever name they have). The reason I want the pages I made back is because I worked very hard on them and I like writing about the sims I create as well as I like reading about other sims people create. If you guys find my writing anywhere near persuasive it would be very kind of you to restore the articles that I have made. Thank You and have a pleasant day.

limegree5 13:12, June 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * Assuming this is true, the pages could be re-created. -- Guilherme Guerreiro [[File:Thanks rose.png]]( talk here ) 13:22, June 27, 2011 (UTC)


 * Agreed. The deletion was done on the assumption that Limegreen5 is not the creator of Meadowview. If that is assumption is wrong, then the articles can be restored. Dharden (talk) 13:29, June 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * I have restored the pages after seeing no opposition to it's restoration, and after reading the comments. --<font face="Trebuchet MS" color="black">W H  (Talk) 04:31, June 28, 2011 (UTC)

IPs spam commenting fanon
I have seen two cases of spam on Fanon:Quinn King, which usually shows some gibberish, non-existant code and a fake website link. One sample showed "NATSc9 <a href="http://vziwwwgfpdar.com/">vziwwwgfpdar</a>". Both and  have had their comments deleted and have been warned. Both of the IPs are from two different locations and whatismyipaddress.com shows that neither of them are proxies, although they may not be announced as proxies. I'd advise everyone to watch out for this kind of spam on fanon articles, particulary Fanon:Quinn King. 13:36, July 4, 2011 (UTC)

User:Marandram and User:Hiola
Several users had voiced concerns on the IRC channel about these two users and their similarities. We felt that we should ask a Checkuser for their opinion and the check said that and  are indeed related.

The issue here is that they have both voiced support for this discussion, which Hiola proposed. Given the vote stacking that is going on here, I feel that the "Fork discussion" should be null and void, as it seems to be an attempt to try and get TSW to leave Wikia with sockpuppets being used in the oppositions favor, with long-term members of the community opposing the proposal.

As far as blocking comes, I would like to propose a permanent block on Hiola and a shorter block on Marandram, as this is the main account, and another admin can feel free to suggest a length for that. Before anything happens, I would like some input from other administrators. 07:33, July 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. I feel we should block the sock for infinite, and the main account for one month. --<font face="Trebuchet MS" color="black">W H  (talk) 07:35, July 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * I was thinking in the same area for the block. As for closing this, I think that the decision should be left to a bureaucrat, seeing as it was LiR that started the vote in order to gain consenseus. 07:44, July 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * I am also inclined to feel that the discussion should be null, moreover I felt that was more like advertising than an attempt to improve The Sims Wiki. As for the blocks, I agree with a permanent block on the sock and a shorter on the the main account. Thank you! -- Guilherme Guerreiro [[File:Thanks rose.png]]( talk here ) 10:08, July 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * The blocks have been handed out. Pending a bureaucrat to decide whether to terminate the discussion on the community portal or not. 10:41, July 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * I am inclined to think that it should be declared null. The discussion appears to be an attempt to promote this "igwn" and encourage us to become part of it. Gboyers was polite about it, but the comments on his talk page from "Mr. User", who appears to Marandram/Hiola, seem to support this conclusion. Dharden (talk) 13:49, July 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * At the very least, the vote from Hiola should be removed, given that this user has been blocked as a sockpuppet. Dharden (talk) 13:59, July 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * ETA: This from "Mr. User" indicates that they made a Wikia account for the express purpose of encouraging us to move. This person may seriously believe that that would be in our best interests, but (IMO) that comment does not foster the appearance that the discussion was started in good faith. Dharden (talk) 14:30, July 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * In addition to the above discovery over the creation of a Wikia account, I am of the conclusion that this whole thing was to advertise "igwn" and from looking around Grand Theft Wiki, it seems that Marandram/Hiola wants to have ownership of this wiki. I am in full support of declaring the discussion as null. Regardless of the socking incident, it has recieved an overwhelmingly negative response from the community anyway. 14:34, July 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * FWIW, It seems that Mr. User/Marandram/Hiola is planning to make a copy of this wiki, whether we fork or not. 18:26, July 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * Dear God, really? What seemed as a small missunderstanding turned out to be this! Yummy! 18:32, July 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * What can we -- or can Wikia -- do about this? Dharden (talk) 18:37, July 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I'm not really sure. I will however send a contact to Wikia alerting them of this issue to see if they are able to intervene in a way. 18:41, July 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * Go for it. As far as I'm concerned, this has put paid to any thought that the discussion was started in good faith. Dharden (talk) 18:45, July 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * Sent in the request. Wikia usually reply faster to the more important stuff, I just pray they can help us... 19:03, July 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I hope they can. FWIW, in this thread Gboyers did caution Mr. User/Marandram/Hiola against making a copy if the community here doesn't want to move. For the time being, I will assume that he is acting in good faith, and intends to respect our decision. Dharden (talk) 19:12, July 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * It also seems that the desired domain name that Mandaram wanted, TheSimsWiki.com, has been registered (EDIT: it seemed to have been registered in October 2010, which was when Oasis was made mandatory, so it may or may not be for the "cloned TSW"). FWIW, it was traced to 173.192.173.35, which is a server IP. Until we get a response from Wikia, I'd urge users to keep an eye on the two talk pages at Grand Theft Wiki and note down anything suspicious. 19:16, July 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * Gboyers has responded on Mr. User's talk page on Grand Theft Wiki. As far as I'm concerned, this is the money quote: "Don't try to take over, steal, copy or manipulate others' wikis for your own benefit." Dharden (talk) 19:32, July 13, 2011 (UTC)

This is getting pretty serious. I'm pretty sure from what has been said that Gboyers is acting in good faith, but this Mr.User/Hiola/Marandram guy doesn't seem to be, or at least wants some form of control over TSW. It could also be notable that Marandram had another account, which he abandoned as he wanted a rename of it. The account is located here. It could be worth mentioning he wrote on this page he retired from another wiki due to horrible policies.

Also, regarding his move to make a copy TSW, I feel that we should increase his block, prefferably to permanent, if he ends up doing this. ~> ฬ ђ  (tคlк ★  ς๏ภtгเ๒ร) 23:22, July 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * As of this moment, Wikia haven't replied yet and according to Special:Statistics, someone has requested a database dump. I've heard that the database dumps are human controlled rather than by a bot, so there is a chance that Wikia can block the database dump. In regards to upping the block, I'm not opposed to it but I feel that we should continue to monitor this situation carefully and see if Wikia Staff wish to intervene with this. 14:35, July 14, 2011 (UTC)

I have recieved a response from Sannse.

Hi Georgie

''All text on Wikia is under a free license, the Creative Commons-by-sa license. This means that it is possible for anyone to reuse the content, as long as they properly attribute the source, and keep the content (and any additions to the content) under the same license.''

''But, that said, I don't think there is much to worry about here. You have the advantage of secure hosting, stable servers, good Google results... and the community to keep growing your wiki. The chances of his fork being so successful are remote, especially as it seems he doesn't have the technical knowledge to run a wiki. The best way for you to counter his attempt to fork is to continue to edit and make your wiki the most active and the best possible :)''

The Sims Wiki is a strong and successful one, so just keep doing what you are doing!

Best wishes

-- sannse

Based on this, I feel that we shouldn't worry too much, as the mirror site would have to credit us anyway in additon to the little technical knowledge that Marandram has, and that we continute to build on the wiki as normal. 23:57, July 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm still very concerned about this. And from what I I acn understand wikia won't do much for now regarding this. But we should all keep an eye on Mr. User and watch them, so that we can report any action we see as hurtful for us. I recommend everyone to stay attent.-- Guilherme Guerreiro [[File:Thanks rose.png]]( talk here ) 00:03, July 15, 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see how we can be that worried about this, for now. I doubt Mr.User has the skill for wiki design and running, and, as sannse said, we are a strong site and probably won't be affected that much. ~> ฬ ђ  (tคlк ★  ς๏ภtгเ๒ร) 00:19, July 15, 2011 (UTC)
 * And Sannse is trustworthy when it comes to things like this, so it's probably best to get back to running the wiki how we usually do. 00:31, July 15, 2011 (UTC)

Four checkuser confirmed possible sockpuppets...
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)

83.149.0.0/16 again
It looks like troubles with the 83.149 ip range are continuing on. When I was looking through the deletion log, I noticed this ip range had made another inappropriate page, which was deleted. Most of their contributions are either spamming russian links and inserting nonsense into pages, in particular about sims like "Prof. Jenny". I have had to block the entire ip range for one month as I honestly see no way that this user will go away. For reference, check this page for their block log, and I urge all administrators to not be hesitant in handing out blocks to 83.143 ip's, or any users with similar editing behaviour. ~> ฬ ђ  (tคlк ★  ς๏ภtгเ๒ร) 02:12, July 27, 2011 (UTC)

CookieMonster888
There's been serious talk on the IRC about Monster's activity as an admin, and how much he really deserves it. 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)
 * 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)

Spam blogs
Recently I have noticed spam blogs being written here and on a few other wikis by random users, most notably and. The blogs seem to be of a random topic (which changes after each blog). Recently, I have also heard rumors of attacks on random wikis by outside groups (notably 4chan), so I'm unsure if this is related or not. Whether or not the two users in question are related is another thing but it probably isn't worth looking into for the time being (VSTF will likely catch up with them if they're causing a cross-wiki disturbance).

If anyone sees a blog that is completely unrelated to the wiki and is of a random subject, report/delete the blog immediately and hand out a short term block for spam, as it is likely that a) they may be part of a recruitment which only intends to spam, b) they may be the same person and c) they are too impatient to return after a short block (which was the case with Abenbrown). 21:06, September 8, 2011 (UTC)

User:173.89.22.6
This user is keep inserting a false information on many article even after being blocked. Last time GG blocked this user for 3 days and after GG block is over on 16 august 2011 that user to insert false information on 17 and 28 august on many article, now i have blocked that user for 1 week. can we block that user more longer? even permanent if possible? because, if I see on the history im sure that that user don't have any good faith to this wiki and will continue again after the block ended. --Wir.wiryawan 15:00, September 10, 2011 (UTC)
 * It's possible to block him longer, but not possible to block him permanently, wikia doesn't allow IPs to be permanently blocked. -- RoseGui [[File:Thanks rose.png]] ( talk here ) 16:15, September 10, 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, Wikia does allow an IP to be permanently blocked but unless the IP is a proxy, permanently blocking an IP is generally frowned upon. This entry on whatismyipaddress.com shows that this is a dynamic IP on Road Runner, which are a relatively large ISP, meaning that a permanent block would be pretty useless as the vandal only has to reset their router. I'd stick with one week for now, hoping that'll get the message across. 16:31, September 10, 2011 (UTC)
 * ok, lets wait until the block has ended. If that user creating a false information again we must block longer then 1 week. i will keep my eye on that user. :) Wir.wiryawan 18:00, September 10, 2011 (UTC)
 * Caught them doing the same thing earlier on my phone, blocked them for a month. 06:54, September 20, 2011 (UTC)

User:Smiley j
Given their history of vandalism, I am not holding out much hope for this user improving their behavior. Personally, I think we should issue a permanent block, as this user doesn't seem to be here to edit constructively but I would like some further input before anything else happens. 09:14, September 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree.
 * Im agree too, the worst of his vandal is he doing it when the time many user whose usually active here is not on the wiki, so many of his vandal is unreverted until nikel find it 2 week later. if you all agree, I or another admin can change the block to permanent Wir.wiryawan 12:07, September 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree as well. |_<font color="#A60914" size="2px">Andronikos Leventis <font color="#1404A2" size="1.3px">Talk 12:10, September 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * I've changed the block to permanent. 13:23, September 11, 2011 (UTC)

User:Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaach
has done nothing to improve the wiki. They have also uploaded an inappropriate image and vandalized a Scott Chesterfield by blanking it out. If you all agree, me or another admin can issue a permanent block. |_<font color="#A60914" size="2px">Andronikos Leventis <font color="#1404A2" size="1.3px">Talk 15:21, September 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * Even though we should assume that the user will be too impatient to wait out their block or that they will change, I'm not opposed to a permanent block for this user as I doubt they're here to edit constructively anyway. 16:37, September 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, it is too fast if we block that user permanently. but uploading an inappropriate picture is very unacceptable. i suggest that we increase the block up to 1 month and if that user do it again, permanent block can be given to that user. Wir.wiryawan 01:55, September 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not opposed to a permanent block but I feel that one or two weeks would be the best duration.
 * OK, a block increase should not be very bad. I agree with WH about it's duration. |_<font color="#A60914" size="2px">Andronikos Leventis <font color="#1404A2" size="1.3px">Talk 10:02, September 14, 2011 (UTC)