The Sims Wiki talk:Admin Portal/resolved discussions 2010

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

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

Facts

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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


 * }

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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

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

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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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

Like Button code
Like Button code:



or



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

Admin Portal talk page archives
{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="margin-left:5px; float:left; width:650px; font-size:100%; border:1px solid #007FFF; background-color: #FFFFFF;" ! colspan="2" style="text-align:center;" |Click here to expand original discussion As you may notice, a few resolved discussions have been archived. I encourage you to go to the archive and check it out, since I think it may be a feature we want to duplicate, especially for discussion pages that have multiple archive pages. The system on the Admin Portal talk archive hides all discussions except those which the reader wants to see, allowing a person to easily find the discussion they're looking for without tons of needless scrolling. Further, I kept the checkmark/x mark 'resolved' statement out of the hidden table, since it gives a brief discussion of the outcome, and is useful in that regard. Any improvements to the layout are appreciated. I'll soon write up a brief description of how to add more items to that archive, but first...

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

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


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


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


 * Check Template:Resolved/mini


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


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

New 'Resolved Discussions' layout
The wikitable feature used on the resolved discussions page does not work under the new skin. Therefore, new archivals should utilize the collapsible navbox feature to hide previous discussions. Below is the code currently used for those boxes on the archive page:

Which produces this:

All discussions on that page will shortly be transferred into the new format. Unfortunately, the text in the navbox format automatically centers, and I don't know how to prevent this. If you have more experience with navboxes and know how to left-align the text, please tell me how, or else go onto the resolved discussions page and make the changes yourself. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 23:19, October 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * }

Vandal IP
{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="margin-left:5px; float:left; width:650px; font-size:100%; border:1px solid #007FFF; background-color: #FFFFFF;" ! colspan="2" style="text-align:center;" |Click here to expand original discussion
 * I believe that a single person living in or around London, UK has been using multiple IP addresses (specifically 92.27.218.130 and 89.243.165.132) to vandalize here on TSW. The two IPs (both of which have already received blocks for their behavior) are located in the general London area: and have made identical styles of vandalism, consisting of going to articles about Sims and inserting highly incorrect information into the infobox. Examples:.
 * I believe that a single person living in or around London, UK has been using multiple IP addresses (specifically 92.27.218.130 and 89.243.165.132) to vandalize here on TSW. The two IPs (both of which have already received blocks for their behavior) are located in the general London area: and have made identical styles of vandalism, consisting of going to articles about Sims and inserting highly incorrect information into the infobox. Examples:.

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

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

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

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

Given that this vandalism is generally more annoying than damaging, I don't think this requires much action other than revert, block, ignore. -  LostInRiverview talk · blog 16:11, January 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, the 2.102 IPs are also coming from the UK. WHOIS reports are saying that the 2.102.*.* range and the 92.27.*.* are both on "Opal Telecom", which from my understanding, owns a UK ISP known as TalkTalk. Seeing as the 2.102 range is the only one that is still attacking, there is a chance that this may possibly be the same person, given the similar edits and edit summaries. Also, asking for a rangeblock may be problematic as TalkTalk/Opal Telecom is one of the largest ISPs in the UK, which means hundreds or even thousands of potential editors may be affected. GG   (t)  •  (c)  •  (b)  21:03, February 9, 2011 (UTC)
 * I have blocked 2.102.0.0/16 for a short period of time to prevent the attacks (it seems we can block IP ranges). GG   (t)  •  (c)  •  (b)  21:30, February 9, 2011 (UTC)
 * I've restored the block, but have moved to allow users within that range to register accounts and post on their talk pages. This way, we stop vandalism edits to pages, while still allowing legitimate users to register. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 23:21, February 10, 2011 (UTC)
 * I unblocked the range yesterday to see if the vandal has given up but it appears that they haven't as the vandalism restarted immedieately after the range was unblocked. I have re-blocked the range for 1 week but I have a feeling that this won't be the end of the abuse.  GG  Talk  15:22, March 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * Per a discussion with LiR on IRC, we have decided that the range should be permanently blocked to prevent further abuse. Anyone on this range will be able to create an account in order to minimise collateral damage.  GG  Talk  19:26, March 8, 2011 (UTC)

2.102 vandalism has restarted today and it appears to be the same person as before. I have blocked the range for 6 months but enabled account creation to minimise collateral damage. If the user makes an account (which seems to be unlikely), we can give a permanent block based on their contributions. 16:04, May 12, 2011 (UTC)

New IP range, same ISP
I have noticed another IP, 89.241.53.70 had vandalised Burglar today. A WHOIS shows that this is the same ISP in the UK. I recommend that any user or admin who notices strange edits from this range to act immedieately as this could be the same person somehow changing their dynamic IP range. I have warned the IP for now (in case this is another person) but I will keep an eye out for any IPs in this range or are on this ISP. GG  (t)  •  (c)  •  (b)  16:39, February 10, 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll keep a lookout. Thanks for the heads up.-- ♥DarthCookie♥  17:10, February 10, 2011 (UTC)
 * Any admins/rollbackers may wish to look at the sections above related to the IP problems. Any admin who sees any IP on 89.241.*.* or the IP ranges above causing vandalism should block that IP immediately. Rollbackers should report any suspicious edits to an admin. GG   (t)  •  (c)  •  (b)  20:06, February 10, 2011 (UTC)
 * I think this is jumping the gun severely. The edit made by that IP does not match the style of edits done by either of the two previous IP range vandals. Further, there is no history of repeated vandalism from that IP range. I seriously doubt that this is the same user. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 20:24, February 10, 2011 (UTC)
 * After taking a look at this, I can admit that I was too fast to jump to conclusions. I found it strange that someone from that ISP had vandalised a page after the rangeblock was made. The IP has not been blocked and no further vandalism has been made from that range. GG   (t)  •  (c)  •  (b)  16:07, February 11, 2011 (UTC)


 * }

Fanon Wiki merge
{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="margin-left:5px; float:left; width:650px; font-size:100%; border:1px solid #007FFF; background-color: #FFFFFF;" ! colspan="2" style="text-align:center;" |Click here to expand original discussion
 * Note: This discussion space is intended mainly for administrators only. Non-administrator comments may be kept or deleted based on length, relevance and content; non-admins posting here should not try to persuade the admins (at this location) but should only state facts relevant to the topic at hand.
 * Note: This discussion space is intended mainly for administrators only. Non-administrator comments may be kept or deleted based on length, relevance and content; non-admins posting here should not try to persuade the admins (at this location) but should only state facts relevant to the topic at hand.

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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