The Sims Wiki talk:Admin Portal

Weekly Facebook page stats

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

November 8, 2010


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

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Protecting this page - should it happen?
I've noticed that a few administrators would like this page to be protected so that only admins can edit it. I've also noticed that there have been occasions where non-admins have been invited to voice their opinions here. I know this isn't where we would usually try to gain consensus but as it's an administration issue, I've chosen to bring it up here. I have removed the current sysop-only protection until we gain an outcome.

Based on what I've seen, I think this needs to be discussed amongst administrators so we can decide whether to go ahead or not. I personally don't think we should add admin-only protection to this page due to the points I've mentioned above but I wouldn't be opposed to semi-protection. Do you think we should add any protection to this page? 20:53, November 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * I personally don't agree with admin-only protection because regular users have been called to voice their opinions on here. -- RoseGui [[File:Thanks rose.png]] ( talk here ) 21:02, November 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * it is possible we protect this page and just open the protection when regular user is invited on the discussion? because the last discussion uninvited regular user who enter many speculation on the articles just pop up in with angry and accuse us "only information we want can be added to the wiki" then leaving. :( Wir.wiryawan 03:19, November 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Wir, but still uncertain about this. Also, this discussion page is usually used to discuss about not-nice users... which means we're talking about them. It's just not right if they butt in when we discuss about them. Also, we already have community portal talk page, where it's more proper place discussions open for public. So I think this can be our "private corner". Perhaps other users who actually want to join the discussions may give input from any admin's talk page.  Nikel  Talk  14:06, November 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * i support to protect this page for admin only page. because i think this page is created for admin to talk about administrative things about this wiki. so its better to prevent unnecessary regular user to join the talk like what happen couples day ago. we can always open the protection if we need input from regular user and closed it back if the discussion is finished. Wir.wiryawan 03:06, November 15, 2011 (UTC)
 * i support to protect this page for admin only page. because i think this page is created for admin to talk about administrative things about this wiki. so its better to prevent unnecessary regular user to join the talk like what happen couples day ago. we can always open the protection if we need input from regular user and closed it back if the discussion is finished. Wir.wiryawan 03:06, November 15, 2011 (UTC)

Chrissydattilo and Chrissydattilo5
Aside from having almost idential usernames, and  are showing a pattern of the same type of vandalism. Does anyone else smell socks? Dharden (talk) 02:04, December 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, seems pretty obvious so I doubt a checkuser is required in this case. I'd suggest that Chrissydattilo5 is blocked permanently while Chrissydattilo is given a shorter block and a warning. 14:36, December 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. I'd already blocked Chrissydattilo for 3 days, so I left that unchanged and added a warning about socking. Since this user has made no constructive edits, I also warned that continuing to make nonsense or spurious edits could result in a permanent block. Dharden (talk) 16:44, December 2, 2011 (UTC)

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


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


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


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

Spam from users with only 1 contribution
This user,, have been repeatedly spammed in his user page by three different users, one of which is an anon. These are the spammers in the order of timeline,, , and. I smell something fishy here, because all three of them used spam as the crime, only contributed once, and both usernames have "01" in the end. What should we do to them?  Nikel  Talk  11:59, December 26, 2011 (UTC)


 * Both the Colie01 and Disail01 accounts were created minutes before the spam was committed, and have no other edits. I think a checkuser is in order, as I suspect the accounts may be "throwaways" created for the purpose of spam or other vandalism. I also do not think that a block without warning was entirely inappropriate. They did violate our policy wrt editing other users' userpages and spamming, and the edit by Disail01 was outright spam that did not even pretend to be self-promotion. Dharden (talk) 13:56, December 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah they seem very much alike so I'm in support of someone requesting a CU (assuming someone hasn't already). 14:09, December 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * May I know what checkuser is?  Nikel  Talk  10:29, December 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * An administrator or bureaucrat contacts someone with Wikia and asks them to look at whether two or more users share the same IP address or credentials... basically, it helps admins determine if someone is sock-puppeting or if someone created a new account to get around a block on a wiki. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 16:51, December 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * Here it goes. Another user spammed the page again. . I have no doubt they're sockpuppet. But I still don't know what to do with the checkuser. Can we advance to block them without warning or research?  Nikel  Talk  08:12, December 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * I protect the page to semi-protected to prevent another spam while waiting on CU result. its look like only new generated user spam the page. Wiryawan310 09:46, December 28, 2011 (UTC)

This new user, posting many spam link on his talk page. I suspect he was the same user who create many account spamming page and due to I recently protect James021984 page, he create a new one and post spam there. I block this user for 1 week to prevent posting any spam and I recommend to CU on this user too before the block released. Wiryawan310 10:17, December 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * As I can see, he spammed on his own talkpage, and his username doesn't end with "01". Maybe you should shorten the block to 3 days, until you can find some more evidence. In the meantime, I'll get my eyes on him...  Nikel  Talk  10:36, December 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * Forget what I just said. Another new user, made the same pattern with Chitamark3 by spamming his own talk page. This is a serious condition. Sooner or later, if no action is done, he will create more sockpuppets to spam! Should we block them ALL?  Nikel   Talk  10:40, December 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * that user too... lol Wiryawan310 11:01, December 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * I try to block this ip range 124.253.0.0/16 based on the only ip caught spamming with the same pattern. I hope the spam is stopped. if Im wrong, please unblock it.Wiryawan310 11:10, December 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * For me, it's not the spam that matters. It's the sockpuppetry. I don't know how many more he'll be making. But when it's proved they're all sockpuppets, be sure to block them forever, Wir. ;D  Nikel  Talk  11:12, December 28, 2011 (UTC)

I send a CU request via Special:Contact on this user below Wiryawan310 11:38, December 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * User:James021984
 * User:Colie01
 * User:Disail01
 * User:Chitamark3
 * User:Gillet1
 * User:Gurikora4
 * User:Pscli01
 * User:124.253.94.121
 * Wow...I shouldn't have gone away for too long. :P And Wir did the right thing here so hopefully the Wikia staffer conducting the CU will tell Wir the appropriate IP range (hoping that it's 124.243.0.0/16) and a rangeblock can be put in place (if not already). 13:01, December 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * I already block some account for 1 week and I continue to block all account above that hasn't been blocked yet for 1 week while waiting for CU finished. I think this is the best to prevent any spam return from unblocked account. Each account only have 1 edit and that is the spam, so I doubt they dont have any good faith for this wiki. if I'm wrong, please unblock it. Wiryawan310 15:16, December 28, 2011 (UTC)

I just got an email from Sannse

Sannse Carter Cushway, Dec-28 06:10 pm (UTC):

Hi,

None of the accounts use exactly the same IP, but all are on a common range and have similar email addresses. It seems clear enough that they are the same person.

Other accounts I see on this range are:

Fireuv2 {C Jholamark3 {C Misck92 {C Natha0001 {C Petic21 {C Poual1 {C Sarara7

You may be able to slow this person down by blocking 124.253.88.0/21 - this range covers all their current accounts. Hopefully that block should discourage them.

Regards,

-- sannse

Sannse Carter Cushway {C Wikia Community Support

They all same person, I already permanently blocked All 14 accounts for excessive spamming and sock puppetry. Ip range 124.253.88.0/21 including 124.253.94.121 has been blocked for 3 month to prevent another spamming like what sannse suggest. That is a lot of block in the same time... lol Wiryawan310 18:34, December 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * 14 accounts? Wow, someone must have a lot of time on their hands. :| 19:21, December 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * The spam returned with user:Hussey98 User:Pontymark after I unblock 124.243.0.0/16, I permanently block and add the block 124.243.0.0/16 again. I recommend all admin here to check any new user created and permanently block if any spam returned. total account blocked so far 16... lol Wiryawan310 05:57, December 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * Just so everyone knows, a /16 rangeblock will block more IPs than a /21. MediaWiki doesn't allow us to block any value lower than a 16 (15, 14 and so on) but in most cases, a /16 block proves the most effective. I'm going to dread the day that Wikia starts supporting IPv6 where we can only issue a /64 block. :S 15:44, December 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * I already requested CU again on that 2 permanently blocked user to get the best range block. I hope Sannse reply my email soon before new year. Wiryawan310 16:07, December 29, 2011 (UTC)

I Just got a reply from Grunny

Grunny, Dec-30 03:02 pm (UTC):

Hi,

I've checked the two new accounts and combining their IPs with the others, and the correct range is 124.253.0.0/16 as it is the only one that encompasses all the IPs they have used. While that is a large range, there are currently no other users in that range apart from those you have blocked.

One thing to consider doing to make sure they are blocked is to change the block settings at http://sims.wikia.com/wiki/Special:Block/124.253.0.0/16 so that the first option "Block IP users only - This allows registered users from the same IP to still edit. To prevent this IP from registering, check the option below as well." is unchecked. This will stop them creating an account at another wiki and then coming to your wiki and vandalising.

I hope that helps, and feel free to let us know if you need anything else.

Cheers, Grunny

Daniel (Grunny) Wikia Community Support Ask a question at http://forums.wikia.com

I will renew the block now Wiryawan310 15:45, December 30, 2011 (UTC)
 * I hope with this, the spammer will stop spamming. Let's wait and see the result in another week. Then we could conclude this issue resolved.  Nikel  Talk  04:02, December 31, 2011 (UTC)
 * The spammer seems to have stopped. Marked as resolved. 08:01, January 10, 2012 (UTC)

Users KnucklesTheSim and RandomWikiaUser1680
Discussion moved from Talk:Community Portal

claims to be under a new name. However, KnucklesTheSim is not blocked, was never blocked, and on one occasion (http://sims.wikia.com/index.php?title=Lyla_Grunt&diff=prev&oldid=284693 ) actually removed profanity from an article. IMO, this is notable because RandomWikiaUser1680 is currently blocked for vandalism and profanity. I am not 100% certain that the two users are in fact the same person. Anybody else have any ideas? Dharden (talk) 13:50, December 31, 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't doubt that KnucklesTheSim, way back in August changed their name to RandomWikiaUser... but based on KTS' good behavior, I would definitely lean towards thinking that their account was somehow hacked, or perhaps some sibling got a hold of their account. It just doesn't fit their previous behavior at all. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 13:55, December 31, 2011 (UTC)
 * Good point. Dharden (talk) 14:03, December 31, 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd go with the hacking/sibling hijacking theory, given that Knuckles apparently redirected his userpage to that of RWU1680 back in August. According to Special:Listusers, Knuckles apparently logged in on the 18th of December. A checkuser may or may not be redundant as I know that logs are only kept for 3 months but I'm unsure of whether it logs IP addresses based on login data or edits. I do remember a case in the past where a user from Russia constantly vandalised Knuckles' fanon articles and made poor quality fanon articles with similar names. Here, Knuckles reveals that he lives in the UK. Granted that a CU would be pretty useless if RWU1680 is in the UK too (being a friend or sibling), I'm not sure what to do in this case. 20:02, December 31, 2011 (UTC)
 * Something worth mentioning, I think, is that KnucklesTheSim is currently unblocked. It might be possible that whoever is hijacking RWU1680 is unaware of that account, so maybe if RWU is blocked, the legitimate user will go back to using KnucklesTheSim, although that transition would, I suppose, technically be considered ban evasion and a sock puppet account. But if the idea is that RWU has been compromised, the admins could choose to let it happen, assuming the legitimate user was still aware of the old account. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 21:14, December 31, 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks like this edit was made by someone in relation to RWU1680. whatismyipaddress.com shows it as a "Suspected network sharing device" with the hostname of "hosted-by.ecatel.net". By the looks of things, this could possibly be a proxy server (given what looks to be a vhost) although I could be wrong. 00:40, January 1, 2012 (UTC)
 * I have contacted KnucklesTheSim and I'm waiting for a response. For the issue above, I think 93.174.93.145 should be RWU1680 themselves. I have blocked the IP for a week and extended RWUO1680's block as well to the same amount. Perhaps we should request a CU? 00:45, January 1, 2012 (UTC)
 * Sent in a request. 00:57, January 1, 2012 (UTC)
 * According to the checkuser, neither have used 93.174.93.145 yet both accounts are using the same email address. Whether or not the address is being shared by a whole family or something like that is beyond me but I still doubt that Knuckles is actually socking. I guess all we can do now is wait for Knuckles to respond to Andronikos. 19:13, January 1, 2012 (UTC)
 * Since both accounts use the same email address, it's at least plausible that Knuckles intended to change usernames and that the RWU1680 account was either hacked or hijacked. Regardeless, it does appear to be compromised, and we may need to consider a long-term, or even permanent, block. It also may be advisable to try to contact Knuckles by email, as they may have forgotten about that account. Dharden (talk) 20:19, January 1, 2012 (UTC)
 * I have emailed KnucklesTheSim per Dharden's suggestion and expecting a reply on either the talk page or my inbox. 20:48, January 1, 2012 (UTC)
 * Based on a suggestion LiR made via IRC, I've blocked the two accounts indefinitely (but allowed them to edit their talkpages and email administrators) until this situation can be solved. That way, whoever is compromising the account(s) won't be able to continue. 21:13, January 3, 2012 (UTC)
 * I had some problems with the editor and I was unable to keep this up to date. I apologize for that. Anyway, I received reply from KnucklesTheSim and he stated that he indeed was RandomWikiaUser, and then spammed with random keystrokes :(. Anyway, I believe mailing wasn't a good idea as an option, as it was confirmed they share the same email, so I'm rather unsure of what we should do next. 15:42, January 12, 2012 (UTC)
 * I think its better to wait KnucklesTheSim reply on his talkpage to confirm this. because so far he not reply yet on his talk page yet. they share the same email right? so it is possible the email is hijacked too.
 * But if the account is not hijacked and both used by same person (1 for pure editing and 1 for pure vandalizing) like what andronikos receive from KnucklesTheSim email. a sockpuppetry + vandalism will result permanent block for the both account, but based the person still have good contribution I think 1-3 month block + final warning is better for KnucklesTheSim than permanent. but RandomWikiaUser must be blocked permanently. Wiryawan310 01:46, January 13, 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Coming out of Retirement
To the bureaucrats: I would like to formally request that I be re-instated as an administrator of the wiki. I retired from service as an administrator and bureaucrat on September 4, 2011. Therefore, as 6 months has not passed since my retirement date, I am requesting to be re-instated here, rather than going through the Requests for Administratorship process (especially as RfAs are currently closed), in accordance with point #3 of the Inactive Administrator Policy, which says:

"A former admin can immediately regain their status by contacting a bureaucrat and declaring their intention to return to active duty if the absence is less than six (6) months. If they are inactive for longer than six months they will have to reapply."

When I left the wiki in September, I chose to do so because I wanted to devote more time to my studies, extra-curricular activities and my job. However, this semester my level of involvement has decreased dramatically, and I feel I am now capable of resuming an administrative post, and of effectively executing that post.

Under the wiki policies, Bureaucrats are allowed to immediately re-instate me. However, because of the fact that I retired, and was not removed due to inactivity, I would ask that the bureaucrats refrain from immediately approving this request, so that if any bureaucrats have any issues with my reinstatement, they can voice them beforehand.

If you have any questions for me or comments, leave them here, and I'll get to them.

Thanks for the consideration! --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 23:54, January 16, 2012 (UTC)