The Sims Wiki talk:Admin Portal/resolved discussions 2013

Activity Update: December 2012
False alarm! Wikia statistics are not updating for some reason (they are only up to December 18) so there's nothing I can really display here. Our Facebook page numbers are all down from last month as well, but I attribute this mostly to the fact that the Facebook like box isn't displaying correctly on the wiki. So all-in-all, I have nothing to report, at least until Wikia stats update. --  LiR speak ~ read 04:25, January 3, 2013 (UTC)

Good news, the stats are updated. Here we go!
 * Update


 * Total registered (and active) editors in all namespaces - 257 (up 6% from last month) - Second month of increase.
 * Total registered and active editors in the content namespaces - 174 - Tied with previous month.
 * Number of registered editors that have made more than 5 edits to the content namespaces this month - 62 (+3%) - First increase since July 2012.
 * Number of registered editors that have made more than 100 edits to the content namespaces this month - 7 (+16%) - Second consecutive increase
 * Total number of content namespace articles - 8,637 (+1.8%) - Fourth consecutive month of minor (1-3%) increases.
 * Total number of edits to content namespace articles - 3,862 (+26%) - Second month of improvement, first major improvement since June 2012, and the largest single-month percentage increase since October 2011.

Month-to-month comparison : December 2011 vs December 2012

Again, Facebook numbers are down due to disconnect with the wiki. I hope we can figure out a solution for it soon. But the wiki numbers we have from December look good, and in some places we even beat last December's figures. Hopefully we can follow through with this success into the new year! -  LostInRiverview talk ~ blog 21:01, January 7, 2013 (UTC)

Rosebud22
Can anyone order a checkuser on Rosebud22? For some reason the 22 suffix leads me to believe Rosebud22 is somehow related to the likes of Creeper22 or Cademn11, especially as Rosebud22 created an article of questionable relevance to the Sims Series, if there is any to be had at all. MILK FOR THE UNYUUFEX, FLAT CHEST FOR THE CUTENESS THRONE, SKULLS FOR THE SKULL PROBES (user talk:Mathetesalexandrou) 00:52, January 9, 2013 (UTC)
 * Blocked for removing content from pages, I will write a Special:Contact shortly (unless you're willing to...?)
 * Seems like RRabbit came in and helped us out there. Case resolved. MILK FOR THE UNYUUFEX, FLAT CHEST FOR THE CUTENESS THRONE, SKULLS FOR THE SKULL PROBES  (user talk:Mathetesalexandrou) 03:25, January 9, 2013 (UTC)

Anon user 149.147.23.16
What should we do with ? This user's contributions have been creating a needless page (see here), creating a poor quality fanon Fanon:Carl Moody, and vandalizing a user's userpage (see here). The userpage edit used the summary "(anon editing userpage (possible vandalism, AGF))", which may look familiar. Also, in the userpage vandalism, the anon claimed to be 12, which means that they cannot create an account and claim their fanon. I'm minded to delete the fanon and issue a block, but would like a second opinion. Dharden (talk) 15:32, January 15, 2013 (UTC)
 * I deleted the fanon on the grounds that the anon can't claim it, and issued a warning for the vandalism. Dharden (talk) 15:47, January 15, 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to believe that the userpage does belong to the anon although there is no way of actually verifying it (and Wikia won't do a checkuser to compare to an IP), so we can't really be sure of that. I would agree with a block on the basis of the user being underage but as we can't confirm that, I say for now we just keep a watch on the anon and if they act up again then we can just block for vandalism. 22:41, January 15, 2013 (UTC)
 * Works for me. Dharden (talk) 23:16, January 15, 2013 (UTC)

New warning template
As you might be aware, I'm not a fan of our current warning template. Specifically, I think that the template does a poor job of explaining individual 'offenses' because it uses a standard written explanation in all instances. A template that can be modified depending on the situation, and which is overall more versatile, seems like a better solution to me.

So, I decided to create a new warning template, which features variable messages depending on the situation. Messages can be broken up into specific classes:
 * Vandalism: This message warns against making unconstructive edits to the Wiki. This class has three 'levels' - 1, 2, and 3, with 1 being the least severe and 3 being the most severe. The class and level are noted in the template by adding  to the 'type' parameter.
 * Blanking: This message warns against removing all the information from a page or a section of a page without reason. This class has three 'levels' - 1, 2, and 3, with 1 being the least severe and 3 being the most severe. The class and level are noted in the template by adding  to the 'type' parameter.
 * Removing information: This message warns against the removal of valid and relevant information from articles. This class has three 'levels' - 1, 2, and 3, with 1 being the least severe and 3 being the most severe. The class and level are noted in the template by adding  to the 'type' parameter.
 * Violation of File Policy/not licensing images: This message warns users to follow the Image and File Policy and to license all files uploaded to the wiki. This class has three 'levels' - 1, 2, and 3, with 1 being the least severe and 3 being the most severe. The class and level are noted in the template by adding  to the 'type' parameter.
 * Disruptive Behavior: This message warns users not to engage in hostile or distracting behavior, such as name-calling, edit warring, or spamming talk pages. This class has only one level, and is noted in the template by adding to the 'type' parameter.
 * Sockpuppetry: This message warns users that they are suspected of having multiple accounts. This class has only one level, and is noted in the template by adding to the 'type' parameter.
 * Custom: If none of the messages above adequately explains the situation, the administrator can use a custom message. This is achieved by entering to the type parameter, then adding the custom message to the parameter. Note that custom messages will not automatically display either the 'information' or 'warning' images used in the other templated messages.

If no information is entered into the parameter, it automatically displays the 'vandal1' message.

In addition, an parameter allows the placement of additional text, underneath the signature line but above the end "boilerplate" text. This could be useful if the administrator wants to use one of the templated responses but wants to include additional information or an additional message to the recipient.

I've tested this template out a little and it appears to be free of bugs. Go ahead and test it out and tell me what you think of it; the template is currently at NewWarning. --  LostInRiverview talk ~ blog 05:12, March 17, 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks good. You may want to consider adding the possible TSW:ER inclusion to one of the file warnings in accordance with the Image and file policy but otherwise I'm in support of this change. 11:30, March 17, 2013 (UTC)
 * I like it. It might be useful to have the types that have levels default to level 1 if no level is given, so there'll be a message if the level is left out. Dharden (talk) 12:56, March 17, 2013 (UTC)
 * Will tempblock be redesigned in conjunction with the warning template? The simple design makes it rather to-the-point, I guess.  Nikel  Talk  –  Vote!  14:23, March 17, 2013 (UTC)
 * I think having levels would make things easier, because it will make it easier to show how serious their actions were, as well as the suggested template specifying more clearly what they've done, rather than a template with a brief explaination, I like it. Asher Éire I'm a lonely person, so please talk to me... 14:33, March 17, 2013 (UTC)
 * @Lost Labyrinth, I can incorporate that into the template, probably as part of the level 2 warning. Do you think I should make reference to ER in all the warning 'classes' or just the File/Image ones?
 * @Dharden, that's a good idea. I shall implement that shortly.
 * @Nikel23, I wouldn't be opposed to making changes to Tempblock either. I started with changes to the Warning template because, in my opinion, the template needs a lot more help than Tempblock does. If anything else, we can make the changes to Warning then wait and see how they turn out, then bring forward a change to Tempblock later.
 * @Everyone, thanks for weighing in so far! Since the reaction to the idea seems pretty positive, I think we might want to start moving towards implementation. Since this new template is a fundamental change to the Warning template, it might be necessary to inform all admins of the change, if and when we choose to change it. This is because the parameters needed for the template to work will have changed. Since both the current and revised warning templates should be substituted, it might be worth leaving the Warning template as-is for now, while simultaneously starting to use the new warning template. But we could just as well throw out the old warning template and move the new one in without much of a transitional period. Thoughts? --  LostInRiverview talk ~ blog 22:35, March 17, 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd say ER should be fine only in the file classes as it's mainly for good faith users who are doing things wrong, anyone warned for vandalism can just be dealt with straight away. Oh and as a minor note I checked earlier to ensure that all current warning templates are substituted so that we don't have to cleanup a load of code later on. 22:40, March 17, 2013 (UTC)
 * The changes suggested above have been implemented. A slight issue on the matter of substitution, by the way. Presently, NewWarning probably shouldn't be substituted onto a page, as it leaves all the functions visible in the wiki code, even if the functions themselves aren't being used. The result is a long string of wiki code that might confuse many users. If there is a way to strip the template of this code when it transcludes over, that would be best. Generally speaking templates for user talk pages should always be set to substitute, but with this template set up as it is presently, doing that would not be practical. --  LostInRiverview talk ~  blog 23:06, March 17, 2013 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the substitution of what currently sits in Warning. Fortunately they all were properly substituted anyway but leaving it as just  would cause numerous issues later on. I can see the technical limitations with the new template, I was just executing a pre-emptive measure on the current, unmodified template to save hassle later.  23:17, March 17, 2013 (UTC)
 * Good thing there aren't too many pages which use Warning templates that aren't substituted, so it's not gonna be a big deal of work to substituted.


 * I see the template leaves its codes when substituted too. I have an idea though. What if use a template for this template, that stores the contents/comments/"Please note...", while the rest of the code (like the box) stays in this NewWarning template? So when NewWarning is substituted, it will not leave the entire ifeqs behind. We've had many infoboxes that implement this method. Take a look at NeighborhoodInfobox for example, that uses GetGameIcon template in the  parameter. This is to let the infobox gets an icon from GetGameIcon without having to include the entire options in the code, if the infobox is substituted.  Nikel   Talk  –  Vote!  09:18, March 18, 2013 (UTC)


 * ETA: Just changed some things a bit. So far, the leftover I see is the usage of a template to my subpage, as seen in the Sandbox.  Nikel  Talk  –  Vote!  09:43, March 18, 2013 (UTC)


 * I can't seem to get the "custom" type to work. The template accepts "custom" as a type, but trying to enter "custom =" just shows . Dharden (talk) 12:57, March 21, 2013 (UTC)

(Reset indent) The template should be fixed now. --  LostInRiverview talk ~ blog 15:25, March 21, 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems to be. Dharden (talk) 15:32, March 21, 2013 (UTC)

Mid-April 2013 Activity Update
This hasn't been jotted down for a few months so I'll just make a small dump of whatever changes have occurred since December 2012, with percentage differences from the previous month.

April's figures are, obviously, partial given the fluctuating values so I won't draw too much attention to that for now. December to February does show a small percentage drop across the board but things do look mostly positive for March with more edits being made to articles despite a small 1% drop in our active userbase. Hopefully we can replicate and expand on our March success throughout the rest of this month and beyond. 19:06, April 14, 2013 (UTC)

April 2013 Activity Update
I've decided to steal re-appropriate Lost Labyrinth's statistics, now that the month of April has concluded. Here you go:

As you can see, April was a good month for The Sims Wiki, especially if you look at our 'Registered and Active' and 'Editors to Content >5' categories. Our 9% loss in Editors >100 is a bit misleading, since a 9% drop for us translates to one editor fewer, meaning that in April we had 10 editors on The Sims Wiki who edited 100 or more content pages (we tend to average less than this, judging by our statistics). Total content articles remains steady with slight increases - under a percentage point, so it's recorded in stats as a non-gain. Total edits to content were on par with those in March, which is good news since March's totals were the highest since last August.

The newest bit of information on that chart is the Wiki Activity Monitor, or WAM, Score. This is a new feature being rolled-out by Wikia, which uses (secret) algorithms to calculate strong community activity on a particular wiki. A rating of 98.49 is good enough to place The Sims Wiki in 69th place overall - that's 69th out of literally tens of thousands of wikis! You can read more about the WAM on this page.

So overall, things are looking pretty good for us. Let's keep on doing just what we're doing, and keep our eyes open for opportunities to build our editor base. We've had a lot of interaction with the community via Facebook and Twitter, which I hope has helped us bolster participation somewhat. Hopefully we can keep this going into May and beyond. --  LostInRiverview talk ~ blog 01:36, May 1, 2013 (UTC)

Edit: I'm also going to include the customary comparison between this year and last year, as before. Note that this table does not include WAM Scores as that feature did not exist in April of 2012

Month-to-month comparison : April 2012 vs April 2013

--  LostInRiverview talk ~ blog 01:47, May 1, 2013 (UTC)

Should Profanity filter block violating users?
Currently we have an Abusefilter filter that is intended to block the addition of profanity to the wiki (otherwise known as Filter 5). According to wiki policy, addition of profanity is against the rules and is punishable by blocking, a policy which the administrators did not neglect to enforce prior to Abusefilter being activated here. So it seems to me only a logical extension of this policy, that users tripping the profanity abuse filter should receive blocks as well.

There are a couple reasons why I think this should be done. Firstly, putting in place any rule, or in this case an abuse filter, is just asking for someone to come along and try to subvert the rule. Our profanity filter only limits certain words, entered in certain ways. A user could still add profanity to a page, simply because the filter cannot prevent all circumstances. By blocking the user when they try to add the "obvious" profane words, we prevent them from finding a way around the filter and discourage them from trying to do so.

The addition of profanity itself cannot be construed to be a good-faith edit, especially since none of the words that the profanity filter currently limits can really be used in a non-explicit scenario. I of course cannot list the words since doing so would trip the filter, but trust me when I say that they have no place anywhere in our wiki. Simply trying to add a profane word or words in the first place shows the user's intent not to edit in good faith, and that seems to me like a good reason to block them.

As for the length of the block, I'd suggest a day-long block. This isn't an administrator-triggered block so I wouldn't be comfortable with one lasting longer than that.

Any thoughts? --  LostInRiverview talk ~ blog 04:54, May 1, 2013 (UTC)
 * Interesting thought, I think a block would be reasonable. One day seems fair to me. If we do this we'll need to keep an eye on the block log however as the filter has been known to get false positives occasionally.
 * Seeing that profanity seems to not reflect good-faith edit at all, giving a block may be legitimate. I don't know, however, if they deserve a one-day block for one (unless it's more) profane edit, because it's happened quite often, and we don't seem to always block whenever there's one. If warning doesn't help, maybe at least we give them one-hour block or longer, and the duration increases if they persist doing so. Is it possible?  Nikel  Talk  –  Vote!  11:35, May 1, 2013 (UTC)
 * On a technical perspective, the abusefilter would automatically block a user permanently if we used the automated block setting, which is why we only really use this for prolific long-term abusers and mass spammers. Either way an admin would have to manually remove a block after 1 day, if we went the automated route, or check Special:AbuseLog for offenders.


 * I can see the argument for doing this though I feel the idea of a filter is to ease administrative workload. At the moment I'm in the middle with this on technical grounds, leaning towards support. 11:19, May 2, 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow, I was not aware that abusefilter blocks were automatically permanent; I can't say I really support perma-blocking on the first offense. Also, I think having it set so that an admin needs to check the logs constantly just puts more work on them, which does run contrary to Lost Lab's statement that the abusefilter is meant to lighten the load. So, funny as it may sound, I no longer support my idea. --  LostInRiverview talk ~ blog 13:42, May 2, 2013 (UTC)

May 2013 Activity Update
I haven't forgotten about this! Here are your stats this month

Month-to-month comparison: May 2012 vs May 2013

Alright, despite The Sims 4 announcement, May wasn't as spectacular as April was. I think a lot of our March/April activity can be attributed to Spring Break and Easter, when people get time off of work and school. Historically speaking, June and July are our strongest months of the year, so I anticipate that our statistics will take another upturn next month. One bright spot - our WAM score has increased substantially, no doubt due to the increased traffic coming here as a result of TS4.

Taking a look at our apples-to-apples comparison with last May, you can see that things indeed are improving. The exception to this is in our Total Edits to content section, which was oddly lacking in May.

--  LostInRiverview talk ~ blog 22:44, June 1, 2013 (UTC)

User:Alaisia911
I can't say that this can be an evidence or not, but this user's one and only edit is rather suspicious to point out her age. I'm not sure if it's real. Should we keep an eye on her or something? I can't tell it from her other user pages either.  Nikel  Talk  –  Vote!  04:40, June 12, 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems fairly authentic to me, unless it's like a weird form of Inception or something. Anyhoo I've gone and blocked based on this, as well as the fact she uploaded a fanon image out of the blue. 21:46, June 18, 2013 (UTC)

User:ILoveBeyonceForeverAndEver
I know bringing this up directly contradicts the fact that I unblocked her earlier today and applied TSW:ER restrictions on her but after she was banned for harassing another user in Chat and creating this blog aimed to attack other users, I honestly can't see any hope in this user improving their behavior and I'm thinking a permanent block is the only real way forward. I'd like to know what everybody else thinks about this before, and if, we go this route. 21:42, June 18, 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, the deleted blog post mentioned "never returning", so let's see if she means it. If she comes back after the block and misbehaves again, give her the boot. Dharden (talk) 22:08, June 18, 2013 (UTC)
 * I gave her an indefinite block and gave her a chance to clean up her act. She failed catastrophically at that, so I think it's time to say goodbye. --  LostInRiverview talk ~ blog 14:48, June 19, 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't have any real hope of her improving, either. We don't have to do it now, bit if it's a question of whether to perma-block her now or later, we might as well do it now. Dharden (talk) 18:16, June 19, 2013 (UTC)
 * To put this another way, given her record, is there any reason not to perma-block her now, other than the thought that she might be serious about not coming back? Dharden (talk) 12:49, June 21, 2013 (UTC)

Anonymous vandal
Remember the anonymous vandal who kept inserting false copyright to files I mentioned months ago, and then some more anons spammed some articles with proxy? The file licensing vandal last very long, until Wikia broke Lab's handy tool for licensing the image files. I don't know if it's either good or bad. Thankfully Beds has taken care of licensing the files these days. You might not realize this vandal anyway, unless you keep track of Special:RecentChanges.

Recently, the number of anonymous edits increase. Some anons now insert false information, while some are just plain vandalism. I know I can't tell whether they're the same culprit or the old culprit who's changing target or maybe completely different people or what. Sometimes anons even made rightful edits, so I suppose it's not a pattern. Maybe I'm just a little more paranoid recently. All I can say is keep an eye on anonymous edits as they can easily slip past and their edits remain unnoticed.  Nikel  Talk  –  Vote!  07:39, June 22, 2013 (UTC)
 * I must say I have my suspicions on these vandals and have been keeping a very close eye on these edits they have been making. I've also been patrolling edits made in Files, which is where most of the vandalism has been taking place. I have also taken note of a few of these IP's, just for reference. Beds (parlare - da leggere ) 15:57, July 30, 2013 (UTC)

"About us" section/page
I've been thinking about creating a section on our administrators page, or else creating a new page, dedicated to giving little biographies about each of the admins and b'crats on the wiki. We could link to this page for the benefit of our Facebook or Twitter followers, for instance, as well as on the wiki. The page would contain sections on each member of "staff" with general information, which could include:
 * First name (if they're comfortable saying it)
 * General location (including their time zone)
 * How they first got into The Sims
 * What other games they play
 * What kinds of "special jobs", if any, they engage in while editing The Sims Wiki (e.g. perhaps an admin has a knack for categorization, or likes to make templates, etc)

I'm thinking there would ultimately be less than a paragraph for each admin. But, it would be a good way, I think, to personify the admins and show others how we came to be on TSW.

Thoughts? --  LostInRiverview talk ~ blog 02:36, July 10, 2013 (UTC)
 * That's kind of interesting! Although, personally, I wouldn't put my first name (which by the way is not the one on my other account-name, which was actually composed of two of my last names/surnames, but I have given away these already, so giving my first name seems unlikely to me) nor any social networks. But I think it might be interesting in the sense that is helpful to other users in order to contact us, know the admin a little bit better, know in what each admin can help more in depth and feel comfortable about talking and asking for help to us, because, after all, we all have been newbies too - "How they first got into The Sims"! -- RoseGui ✿ ( talk ) 06:19, July 10, 2013 (UTC)
 * I guess that's not a bad idea. It could be some sort of quick introduction or get-to-know to the admins. Maybe as long as personal information doesn't need to be involved.  Nikel  Talk  –  Vote!  06:40, July 11, 2013 (UTC)
 * I reckon it's a good idea, too. However, I think that each person should choose how much information they want to reveal about themselves, so we don't pressure anyone into doing anything. :) ~ Waikikamukow  ( Anyone wanna chat? ) 03:02, July 13, 2013 (UTC)
 * This would be quite good, AFAIK not many wikis do this, so perhaps it could start a trend or something? I don't know... As long as the admins are okay with some details of their lives being shared on the wiki. Beds (parlare - da leggere ) 11:14, July 26, 2013 (UTC)

June 2013 Activity Update
LiR completely forgot about this. Fortunately as the superior user with "Lost" in their name, I've come to deliver the stats only 12 days late.

I'll only compare May to June 2013. If you want the earlier figures, check the May update.

I was too lazy to do a 2012 to 2013 comparison. Based on these figures, we've had a generally positive month, possibly largely down to the Island Paradise release. Let's hope things stay bright throughout the summer and beyond. 21:31, July 12, 2013 (UTC)

User:TheSimInvasioner and User:TheBlackAces
According to TheSimInvasioner's userpage, his old account was TheBlackAces, and he made another one instead of renaming it. However, I'm uncertain if they're the same person. He could be lying. If he is, what should we do to TheBlackAces?  Nikel  Talk  –  Vote!  03:33, July 17, 2013 (UTC)
 * A CheckUser would be worthless here given the data only goes back to 3 months ago and TheBlackAces made their last edit in February. The only thing we can really do is assume good faith that TheBlackAces has switched over to TheSimInvasioner and block the former as a security measure. 09:41, July 17, 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, block, but don't blank, and leave email enabled just in case. Dharden (talk) 12:03, July 17, 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, I have indefinitely blocked TheBlackAces, but did not check any of the boxes. Dharden (talk) 12:15, July 17, 2013 (UTC)

User:Raving-ben and User:Hump-hump-ben
If you look closely, both and  have identical names, and their language is similar too, especially with the annoying "me nd ma mates" and "ay/aw, ken?" This is more serious than being underage, for sockpuppetry and having already been permanently banned before.  Nikel  Talk  –  Vote!  10:28, July 20, 2013 (UTC)
 * The former was almost 2 years ago. CheckUser records only go back to 3 months ago so we can only act on behavioural evidence. That said, their behaviour does look strikingly similar as well as the username combination. Given that neither of the users have actually done anything useful, I wouldn't mind giving Hump the permanent boot. 11:04, July 20, 2013 (UTC)
 * Sometimes, some users return after several months or years gone. I think he just forgot his old username or forgot he was blocked, so he made another account.  Nikel  Talk  –  Vote!  12:34, July 20, 2013 (UTC)
 * Seeing as the behavioural evidence is there with no objections, I've gone and issued a permanent block to Hump's account. 23:52, July 20, 2013 (UTC)

User:Cubistic.mage
, as well as their IP address, is yet to make a single constructive contribution to the wiki. Within the space of 5 days this user has been blocked for copying and pasting articles from the BioShock Wiki, copying and pasting elements of other userpages onto their own (as well as a userpage for the aforementioned IP address which has been create-protected), uploading useless files and applying them to articles, failing to license images appropriately, talk page spam and reverting anybody, with both the user account and IP address, who also finds the user's contributions to be nonconstructive.

At this stage it's probably too early to consider issuing a permanent block despite my lack of faith that we're going to see any improvements here. TSW:ER might be the best solution if we want to give the user a chance to clean their act up but I'd like to hear what others think about this before we do anything. 11:28, July 20, 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, so, I've just given him his final warning. One more step out of line and he's gone. If anybody wishes to dispute this or has a better idea then feel free to bring it forward but I'm optimistic we're not going to witness any improvement. 12:00, July 20, 2013 (UTC)
 * Unsurprisingly, this user was quick to ignore his final warning/chance for redemption. A permanent block has been issued. 12:06, July 20, 2013 (UTC)
 * What should we do about the IP? Dharden (talk) 12:14, July 20, 2013 (UTC)
 * Well that lasts pretty quick. And I only left for an hour. The IP is blocked automatically if the user is blocked, isn't it?  Nikel  Talk  –  Vote!  12:21, July 20, 2013 (UTC)
 * The IP should be on autoblock for now. That only lasts 1 day so I'd suggest keeping an eye on it. If this guy acts up again, we can ban the IP. 12:27, July 20, 2013 (UTC)
 * He acted up with the IP shortly after his autoblock expired. I've banned the IP for 1 month. The address is apparently static but I'd watch the 75.118 range closely as the DHCP records have been completely wrong in the past... 23:24, July 21, 2013 (UTC)

Just curious. Does have anything to do with ? No wonder the username sounded familiar to me when I first heard it. According to the ban reason, Cubisticmage was a sock of someone. If they're the same person, could he be a returning vandal who evaded ban (like Raving-ben, see above)? Well, since he's blocked already, we can't do anything else, but I'm just saying.  Nikel  Talk  –  Vote!  06:22, July 28, 2013 (UTC)

User:MezTV
Except for one post to an article talk page, MezTV's contributions have been limited to posting her Let's Play videos, and occasionally adding them to the related videos list. The videos I have sampled are not licensed, and are not used on any articles. This user appears to be using the wiki as her personal video stash. I don't think we have any policy against this other than policies on licensing and on unused media. My inclination is to remove the videos, but I'd like to hear what other admins think before taking action. Dharden (talk) 22:06, July 23, 2013 (UTC)
 * If they've just been listed here and aren't used anywhere (even in her own userspace) then it's safe to remove them and notify the user. This could have been prevented if Wikia didn't create file pages for embedded videos as if they were user uploads. There is a discussion going on about this issue but it's slow taking off. 10:00, July 24, 2013 (UTC)
 * The videos have been removed, and I have left a message on the user's talk page. Dharden (talk) 14:45, July 24, 2013 (UTC)
 * I am beginning to wonder if this user actually reads her talk page. Her response to a polite "please don't do this again" was to do it again. Dharden (talk) 16:51, July 26, 2013 (UTC)
 * And, she's done it yet again. I'm beginning to think a block may be in order, just to get her attention. Dharden (talk) 06:00, August 10, 2013 (UTC)
 * Since she's not continuously active, we can consider that when she's back again. Last time she was active was 4 days ago.  Nikel  Talk  –  Vote!  06:04, August 10, 2013 (UTC)

Recoloring the admin name highlights
I'd like to propose that we re-color the administrator name highlights. I'm referring to the feature we've implemented where administrator and bureaucrat names are given a special color (example: User:Beds and User:Lost Labyrinth ). I'd like to recolor them so that they are both the same (or a similar) color.

I like the fact that admins are highlighted, as it makes it easier to pick us out of a list of names and thus makes it easier for users to find us. But, I think having red for sysops and green for bureaucrats just gives the misconception that the two users have different capabilities or are unequal, despite the fact that sysops and bureaucrats are pretty much the same (excluding the power to promote, which is pretty much irrelevant 99% of the time).

So, my suggestion is that we recolor the administrator names to green... this is based solely on my personal preference for green over red :p. If need be, we can come to some compromise color for all of us.

Thoughts? --  LostInRiverview talk ~ blog 05:29, July 26, 2013 (UTC)
 * Initially having their colours separated was solely for the purposes of identification. Logically thinking however, the only time that bureaucrats are really needed over any other administrator is for a user rights adjustment which doesn't happen as often as one may think, so I'm in support of this. Green bears a close resemblance to the series so I'm okay with that.


 * In all honesty, I'd actually also be in favour of removing the highlights that are in place for Wikia's global user rights (staff, VSTF etc.) as they're updated on Wikia's end very frequently and it would be too much of a burden to update, not to mention we hardly ever see them here. I'd still like for the bots to keep their highlight as despite all the current bots having the word "bot" incorporated into their username somehow, you never know when somebody will create one with a creative or "different" name that could easily be confused with a normal user. That and to avoid confusion with any other user. 10:12, July 26, 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with the colour change; it could easily be implemented and I don't really see a real reason as to why admins names are red and 'crats are in green. I also agree with lostlab's suggestion of removing the highlighted Wikia staff and VSTF users. Beds (parlare - da leggere ) 11:21, July 26, 2013 (UTC)
 * I feel this is a better idea, because it could seem to a new user that they are two different types of users, where the only difference is the modification of user rights. I also feel that it would be better purely because userpages have the "Admin" tag on them, regardless of whether they are actually admins or bureaucrats, so why have different coloured names as identification whereas the actual pages don't (aside from the addition on the actual page itself, not the section with Birthday, gender etc.), so I feel this would clear up any confusion and dominance produced by a simple difference in colours. As for the removal of Wikia Staff and VSTF, I can safely say their removal won't be noticed. <font face="Courier (typeface)"><font color="#74C365">Asher <font color="#FFA700">Éire 'Sup? 12:48, July 26, 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm feeling indifferent, although I actually agree with the main point being crats shouldn't differ from admins. I'm comfortable with the current condition, but having this change isn't bad.  Nikel  Talk  –  Vote!  15:50, July 27, 2013 (UTC)
 * Personally, I like the different colours for the two usergroups. Although the features are basically the same, they still are two different positions. I don't think that the different colours would make anyone believe that bureaucrats are "above" admins or anything, but instead just to properly distinguish the groups. So, I don't support having the two colours be the same. I could support just changing the colours so they're more similar to each other or something (like dark red vs. plain red or something, idk) though. -- Bleeh <font color="#489094">(talk) <font color="#489094">(blog) 19:03, July 27, 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Bleeh, but I have to disagree with what you said about people thinking that bureaucrats are above admins! When I first arrived, I did think that bureaucrats were above admins, partly from the name colours, and partly from what I read somewhere (I can't exactly recall where). Now I know that they aren't really that different from each other, but at the start there I definitely thought that bureaucrats were considered way more experienced and trusted.


 * Anyways, I'd support a colour change, and I like Bleeh's idea of the same colour, just one darker than the other or something like that! I also support the removal of the VSTF and Wikia Staff colours. ~ Waikikamukow  ( Anyone wanna chat? ) 11:29, July 28, 2013 (UTC)
 * Also indifferent, sharing the opinion with Nikel. MILK FOR THE UNYUUFEX, FLAT CHEST FOR THE CUTENESS THRONE, SKULLS FOR THE SKULL PROBES  (user talk:Mathetesalexandrou) 04:35, July 29, 2013 (UTC)

Ok, so after eight people have weighed in, we have 4 in support of eliminating a color difference, two in favor of making the colors similar but not identical, and two who don't really care.

Personally, I think adopting the 'similar but not identical' color scheme is a good compromise. If we make the colors similar it could help to mitigate a lot of confusion while still keeping the highlight there.

Here's an example of the coloring I'm thinking of:

<p style="color:#337800;">Current Bureaucrat <p style="color:#6FA12E;">Proposed Administrator

Thoughts? --  LostInRiverview talk ~ blog 05:42, July 29, 2013 (UTC)
 *   Also, the removal of colors for Staff, VSTF, etc seems to have support, so those changes can probably be implemented immediately. --  LostInRiverview talk ~ blog 05:43, July 29, 2013 (UTC)
 * This could work, I feel that the community could easily adjust to the colour change quite quickly. On a more personal note, I am a big fan of the proposed colour for Administrator names. <font color="#6B1D51">Beds (<font color="#512d17">parlare - <font color="#512d17">da leggere ) 15:09, July 29, 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that will work. Dharden (talk) 15:07, July 30, 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I'm going to go ahead and implement these changes. Expect to see it live shortly. --  LostInRiverview talk ~ blog 23:59, August 3, 2013 (UTC)

174.50.126.43
The IP hasn't exactly acquired a record of making constructive edits. I will grant that many of this user's edits have probably stemmed from an excess of well-meaning enthusiasm. Others, such as this one, lead me to question their commitment to reliability. The user has been warned for adding potentially false information, and for violating the unreleased games policy. I have reluctantly concluded that I cannot consider this user to be a reliable editor, even when they are probably well-meaning in their own eyes. Dharden (talk) 13:39, July 30, 2013 (UTC)


 * This IP's edit to The Sims: Makin' Magic removed the ratings, and attempted to add creatur = Fairy, Witch, Vampire in their place. I'm willing to consider the claim Makin' Magic adds those life states a well-intentioned misunderstanding, but this is part of a pattern of removing valid information from infoboxes and/or adding questionable information to them. I propose that this IP be placed under TSW:ER, and restricted from editing infoboxes in any way. Dharden (talk) 19:49, August 9, 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah there's a clear pattern of goodwill here despite the issues. I'd say go ahead with TSW:ER for this. 09:48, August 11, 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. Given their disregard for the unreleased games policy, I also said "if you want to give information about an unreleased game or pack, do it on the talk page." Dharden (talk) 19:43, August 11, 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think "The Sims 4: Monster Mash" was meant as spam. I think this user read a months-old humor post at GameInformer and took it seriously. Dharden (talk) 20:58, August 11, 2013 (UTC)
 * I hadn't been aware of that post but with regards to its existence, it only adds to the user's growing record of adding unreliable information, if anything. 21:10, August 11, 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. IMO, TSW:ER is this user's last chance. Someone who has good intentions but consistently won't -- or can't -- judge the reliability of what they post has as bad an effect as a vandal who deliberately inserts false information because it's how they get their jollies. Dharden (talk) 21:33, August 11, 2013 (UTC)

July 2013 Activity Update
Month-to-month comparison: July 2012 vs July 2013 Overall, we did better in July than we did in June, despite June being a historically strong month. I'm sure Island Paradise releasing late in June did more to help July's figures than it helped June's. When you look at the year-to-year comparison, you'll see that this July was behind last July, though not dramatically so, especially when you discount the drop in number of content articles due to the player stories delete.

On the subject of the player stories delete, August 2012's statistics were taken after the drop in articles, meaning next month's comparison will be more meaningful than the months prior.

--  LostInRiverview talk ~ blog 06:53, August 6, 2013 (UTC)

User:Renzikitten and User:95XxSims FanxX95
Two users on the wiki (Renzikitten) and (95ZzSims FanxX95) appear to know each other, offline. At first, I didn't want to get involved in their dispute, but their dispute has taken place on Chat a number of times. Their dispute (I can honestly say that I have no idea as to why the two girls dislike one another) began last night, Sims Fan entering chat, saying that there was a *insert profane word here* copying her. This user turned out to be Renzi, thus leading to Sims Fan telling Renzi that she hated her. Unfortunately, there were no Chat Mods or Administrators on Chat at the time and no action was taken. This information has been given to me by a user on Chat who witnessed their argument.

Then, earlier on in Chat, Renzi and Sims Fan continued to spill hatred towards one another, Renzi stating that Sims Fan was scaring her and Sims Fan saying many times that Renzi was a *insert profane word here* and telling her countless times that she hated the girl. After myself and an Administrator warning the girls on personal disputes, Sims Fan left Chat and Renzi remained quiet for a few minutes. I thought that this was over, but apparently, it is not over. Sims Fan made this edit on her userpage, I then reverted the edit and gave Sims Fan a warning. However, Sims Fan ignored the warning and made another edit, thus leading me to block Sims Fan for 1 day.

However, I feel that their personal dispute isn't over and I have a feeling that when her block is over, Sims Fan will probably come back and continue to argue with Renzikitten. I don't really know what to do, and that is why I'm asking on advice for this issue. <font color="#6B1D51">Beds (<font color="#512d17">parlare - <font color="#512d17">da leggere ) 21:57, August 10, 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that was the one who instigated this, seemingly out of nowhere besides an apparent off-wiki personal conflict, though I don't know the backstory of how it started. What happens off-wiki stays off-wiki; for now, I'd say keep a watchful eye on this user and their interactions with others, particularly, and if they persist and show no signs of doing anything useful here, then we can consider a more long-term solution.  23:34, August 10, 2013 (UTC)

The Sims 3/cheats
Since this article is apparently under attack, I have semi-protected it. Dharden (talk) 11:57, August 24, 2013 (UTC)
 * The edit history is nothing more than vandalism and reversion. I'm inclined to semi-protect it even longer if we have to.  Nikel  Talk  –  Vote!  01:32, August 25, 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, it's little more than vandalism and reversion. There are a few good edits, even one or two by anons, but the long-term pattern of vandalism is clear. I have no problem with extending semi-protection. Dharden (talk) 02:12, August 25, 2013 (UTC)