The Sims Wiki:Administrators' noticeboard
The administrators' noticeboard is where The Sims Wiki editors and readers can request assistance or input from members of the administrative team. Matters brought up here may be discussed by administrators and editors, or may be referred as needed to the community discussions forum, the admin portal talk page, or another appropriate venue.
sign your posts by adding four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Note that new sections are added to the bottom of the page.Please
Help with age groups?
Hi! I am having a bit of trouble adding different age groups to my fanon(s). I want to add two age groups at once, but when i go to publish it, they don't show up.
this photo is how i want age groups to look like on my fanon(s).
- This kind of a request would be better for the community discussions forum. The Admin's Noticeboard is meant primarily for requesting administrator assistance, whereas changes to most wiki templates are not determined solely by administrators. - LostInRiverview talk · blog · contribs 20:36, May 26, 2019 (UTC)
Hi! Can the following pages pls be deleted: -Beau Duff -Christina Plata -Jasmine Sampson -Don Sims -Lakeview (subhood) -Tom Hardy -Amanda Grey Thankyou. GingerxNinjax (talk) 05:30, June 6, 2019 (UTC)GingerxNinjax
Deletion of TS4: Island Living
A few minutes ago, I deleted The Sims 4: Island Living because its creation, in my view, violated the Unreleased Games Policy, specifically parts 1 and 3 of the 'Rumor Confirmation' rule. I do believe that the page did violate the letter of the policy. However, upon reflection, I am not sure that deletion was the proper course of action, so I have undeleted the page. I noted in the undeletion log that this is a "unique case." I say that because the so-called confirmation of the rumor was a leak from an EA website. It was not based only on speculation of leaks from non-EA sources, as has happened with games in the past. I think that the UGP as is currently written doesn't adequately address this particular scenario, so as it stands there would be no grounds for me to simply delete the page. I assume within a day of now this will be a moot point (as EA will probably officially announce the expansion at tomorrow's livestream), so it's not worth pursuing a formal deletion discussion. I fully expect that within the next few days, I'll be proposing an amendment to the UGP to cover this type of a leak. In any case, I'm just posting an explanation here for the sake of anyone looking at the Deletion Logs who might be confused by what I did. -- LostInRiverview talk · blog · contribs 01:19, June 8, 2019 (UTC)
- Done. Let us know if, in the future, you want us to restore your fanon and/or the related images you uploaded. -- LostInRiverview talk · blog · contribs 19:29, June 11, 2019 (UTC)
Hi can the following Fanon pls be deleted: -Adam Hart -Amanda Grey -Dinah Winter -Dominic Hart -Malcolm Landgraab V -Nina Landgraab -Simcity (subhood) -Waterside Island -Bella Winter -Joe Winter -Charlotte Winter Thankyou. GingerxNinjax (talk) 13:42, August 2, 2019 (UTC)GingerxNinjax
RE: Editing restriction on DrakonoSkerdikas
(As being discussed at The_Sims_Wiki_talk:Admin_Portal#Editing_restriction_on_DrakonoSkerdikas) I want to say, as a non-admin IP user having to deal with Drakono, that I support this proposal after the recent fiasco with Residential lot, how he proposed his changes on the talk page and I responded and he went ahead and made his own changes anyways without responding, apparently because he's not interested in talking any longer and thinks I'm in his way. He knows his edits are bad, yet he still continues to edit and expect others to fix his mess. I've had enough of doing that. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 11:56, August 4, 2019 (UTC)
Hi can the following Fanon pls be deleted:
-Adam Hart -Amanda Grey -Dinah Winter -Dominic Hart -Malcolm Landgraab V -Nina Landgraab -Simcity (subhood) -Waterside Island -Bella Winter -Joe Winter -Charlotte Winter Thankyou. GingerxNinjax (talk) 13:42, August 2, 2019 (UTC)GingerxNinjax
- Done. If you ever decide that you want your fanons to be restored, please don't hesitate to let us know! :) ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 03:11, August 20, 2019 (UTC)
Requesting bot flag for Syde BOT
I've been thinking about this request for a long time now, but I would like to request a bot flag for my bot Syde BOT, so that I'll be able to use a bot to do AWB edits without flooding Recent Changes.
Of course that would mean that the bot would need to be added to the AWB whitelist. If you have any concerns about my bot being given a bot flag and being whitelisted from the AWB blacklist, I have reasonable experience with AWB, having used it to perform AWB edits over a period of 4 years. It is currently in operation on the following wikis:
I mostly use AWB to do replacements with the find and replace tool, that would be tedious to perform manually. Any Bureaucrat response would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! :) ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 06:46, August 20, 2019 (UTC)
- I have no issues with this request -- LostInRiverview talk · blog · contribs 02:00, September 5, 2019 (UTC)
I Have Two Accounts by Accident
Hello admins! I realised today that I have two accounts, one is logged in on my phone and one on my computer, and I've been using both without realising it until now. I don't know when or how this happened, I have no memory of signing up two times. Is there any way I can merge my accounts? Katsube (talk) 13:21, September 16, 2019 (UTC)
- It is not possible to merge accounts. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 14:31, September 16, 2019 (UTC)
- What I'd recommend is that you choose one of your accounts to be your "main account," and your other account to be your "second account." Go to your second account's userpage, include an explanation that your second account is owned by your main account, and include a link to your main account's userpage. Then, log out of your second account from any devices that currently use it to edit. From your main account, edit your main account userpage to show that you own the second account, and include a link to the second account's userpage. Note that your second account may be blocked from editing as a matter of policy, but that any blocks on the second account will not extend to your main account. If you have a particular reason why your second account shouldn't be blocked, please let us know. -- LostInRiverview talk · blog · contribs 21:42, September 16, 2019 (UTC)
Hi, can the following fanon please be deleted:
- Joe Fall
- Zoey Fall
- Kayla Woods
- Charlotte Palmer
- Evie Lopez
- Valentina Palmer
- Bella Goth (WS)
- Samantha Ottomas (WS)
- Mason Fall
Lifetime Wish Vandalism
Hey, someone messed with the Lifetime Wishes page, adding a bunch of random and "funny" information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk • contribs) 15:20, October 8, 2019 (UTC) - Please sign your comments with ~~~~
- Already fixed. If you are still seeing the problematic changes, try clearing your browser cache and reloading the page. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 15:36, October 8, 2019 (UTC)
New category for Sims with a customized gender
- There has been a lot of confusion lately over Sims with gender customization, and whether they're meant to be taken as transgender or not. I propose we add them to a new category (called "Sims with gender customization" or something similar), so that editors don't feel obligated to add them to the "LGBT Sims" category. - ✨AireDaleDogz✨ (talk) 08:01, October 18, 2019 (UTC)
- This change should be proposed on the relevant talk page, or at the community discussion forum. The administrators' noticeboard is for incidents that require the attention of an administrator, such as user conduct disputes, vandalism, or page protection requests, and not for general editing concerns. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 12:28, October 18, 2019 (UTC)
Physical copies of games
Over the years I have collected a lot of physical copies of Sims here in Australia and a few are missing from this site. Are country specific releases something that this wiki keeps track of? If so, how can I go about providing relevant information to someone to update the pages? I do not have the time to modify the pages entirely myself, especially if they are editions deliberately not included. Some examples are Sims Carnival, Sims 2 Expansion Collection and Sims 2 + University
- If it works best for you, you can join our Discord server and discuss this with other editors on there. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 16:37, October 27, 2019 (UTC)
Fanon Deletion: Hello, can the following Fanon please be deleted: -Thomas Thompson II -Destiny Palmer -Beau Duff -Landon Palmer -Summer Palmer -Valencia Palmer -Dominque Hart Thankyou GingerxNinjax (talk) 12:19, November 8, 2019 (UTC)GingerxNinjax
Fanon Deletation for Rebooting the game
Can all my Fanon be Deleted Please I have to Rebooted my game. Solonor1987, 17 February 2020 (Canada)
The Sims 2: University - newly uploaded images licensing
Hey, I'm so sorry. I only realised after uploading that I forgot to put licenses on all the newly uploaded The Sims 2: University images, I tried re-uploading with licenses but it doesn't look like it's going through.
Please help me with this.
PsychoactiveSushi User page has the s word Cassandra1201 14:41, March 13, 2020 (UTC)
hello, if it's not too much trouble, could you please delete all of my fanon pages and attachments? they include: Medley Luna, Henrietta Luna, Lacey Graves, Bean Williams, Lofty Williams, Lauren Taubenfeld, Lilja Blængsdóttir, Klara Williams and possibly others i'm forgetting. thank you!
Hello, I'd like to request the Shouji and Booty pages to be deleted for the following: The content is not pre-made by the supposed game. To further elaborate; they are randomly generated in-game and are therefore not valid. Greetings, Khaemwaset (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:44, April 14, 2020 (UTC) - Please sign your comments with ~~~~
- Please utilize the Pages for deletion venue to request that pages be deleted. Articles that do not need our speedy deletion criteria can only be deleted after a deletion discussion held in the proper venue. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 13:52, April 14, 2020 (UTC)
Open rights request discussion
I wanted to raise this issue in a somewhat public forum and seek input from other admins as well as the community at-large regarding how to proceed.
So a little over a week ago, I nominated for Content Moderator rights. In the time since that nomination was agreed-to by Gvaudoin, only one person has spoken to the nomination. If you take my nomination as well as C.Syde65's comment in favor, the request currently is approved by all who have chosen to speak to it. However, I doubt that the concurrence of two members of the wiki could be considered to be a 'consensus,' especially for the purposes of promoting another user.
The Requests for Modship page lays out the process by which new mods are selected. It says in step two that, "The period of discussion on a Content Moderator promotion should last at least seven (7) days." The procedures go on to say, in step three, that "If, after seven days of discussion ... there is no clear consensus in favor of the promotion, the discussion will end and the candidate will not be promoted." The letter of the rule seems to suggest that the nomination/promotion has failed due to lack of consensus, but it's unusual and noteworthy because the lack of consensus wasn't due to opposition (or at least, not due to opposition that was voiced in the discussion) but rather the lack of consensus is due to a lack of participation. I think the spirit of the rule was meant to assume that promotion discussions would have enough participation to be able to effectively render a definite outcome one way or the other, which is not the case in this scenario.
So it seems to me that we have a few options. The first is to leave the discussion open past the seven-day window, until we have enough participation to reach a point where we would be comfortable determining consensus. The second would be to close the nomination and promote Gvaudoin, since the discussion had been open for ample time for interested parties to participate and none but one chose to do so. The third would be to close the nomination and not promote Gvaudoin, since though her nomination received no formal opposition, it didn't receive enough support from enough people to represent community consensus or consent for promotion.
Of the options I've given, the first one seems to me to be the best approach. Promoting based on the affirmative voices of two members of the community would be, in my opinion, acting without clear consensus to do so, since consensus requires not only a general agreement among discussion participants, but also requires that enough members of the community participate in the first place. The third option would likewise be bad, as it would essentially treat a discussion that fails through lack of participation the same way as a discussion that failed due to community opposition.
However, as I was the user who nominated Gvaudoin in the first place, I have a bias; I cannot be the one to decide what is to be done, as that could be seen as an abuse of power. I'm hoping that by bringing this up here, we can land on a suitable solution that has broader administrative backing. -- LostInRiverview talk · blog · contribs 01:18, April 26, 2020 (UTC)
- I suggest we keep the nomination open a few more days longer until more users have showed an interest in participating in the voting process. Maybe we should perhaps reconsider changing the 7-day voting period if this becomes an issue in the future, but that's a discussion for another day. ~ Beds (talk - blog) 21:16, April 29, 2020 (UTC)
- I've removed the timer from the nomination, but left everything else as-is. Removing the timer seems to me to be the "least bad" option open right now. The question now would be, what happens if we don't get more input? How long can the request be left open without a conclusion? -- LostInRiverview talk · blog · contribs 05:36, April 30, 2020 (UTC)
- Okay, an addendum is required here. I was looking over the RfA procedures as a prelude to a possible proposed amendment to RfM and RfA processes to de-emphasize the "seven days" timeline. RfA's procedure is slightly different from RfM's, and that slight difference does pertain to this exact problem. Let me show you what I mean.
- The following is the currently-written procedure for closing out a Moderator request:
- If, after seven days of discussion, there appears to be consensus in favor of promotion, the candidate will be promoted. If there is no clear consensus in favor of the promotion, the discussion will end and the candidate will not be promoted.
- And the following is how Requests for Administratorship/Bureaucratship are handled (some non-relevant bits are excluded from this copy):
- A period of discussion shall last at least seven days.
- After the seven day period of discussion has elapsed, it shall be determined whether a consensus in favor of or against promotion has been reached.
- If the discussion shows consensus for a nominee, the nomination is successful and the user is promoted. If the discussion shows consensus against a promotion, the nomination will end and the nominee will not be promoted.
- After the initial seven-day discussion period, if consensus either for or against promotion is not present, discussion will continue until there is a two-day long period, or longer, in which nothing is added to the discussion.
- If this occurs and a consensus for promotion exists, the nomination is successful and the user is promoted.
- If this occurs and a consensus for promotion does not exist, the nomination will end and the nominee will not be promoted. This will occur even if a consensus against promotion does not exist.
- If discussion continues for ten or more days, and it is determined by at least two bureaucrats that progress towards consensus is not occurring, the nomination will end and the nominee will not be promoted.
- I'd be interested in a broader discussion of whether these time frames are needed or should be extended or eliminated. However, that doesn't really solve the matter at hand. It might be simplest just to apply the RfA procedure to RfMs, since they do seem to be largely striving towards the same goal. However, it strikes me as quite unusual and perhaps unfair to alter the procedure for promotions while a promotion is being considered. But I'd like to hear what others think about this.
- As an additional "fly in the ointment," the RfA page makes a point of defining consensus as being a general agreement of "users engaged in the discussion (including the nominating user, if applicable)" [emphasis mine]. The RfA definition of consensus doesn't take into account total level of participation, merely whether those who chose to participate were able to reach an agreement. If you'll recall, my initial hesitation with OKing the promotion in the first place is regarding the low level of participation in discussion. Reading the RfA definition by-the-letter would seem to indicate that low turnout is irrelevant, but I also wonder if perhaps low turnout would violate the spirit of that definition, regardless of how it's written. I suppose it all boils down to the fact that, prior to this, RfAs, RfBs, and RfMs have always received reliable community input. This is the first time that I can remember where it hasn't been the case. It could be that we never conceived of an issue where consensus might fail due to lack of participation, versus a lack of agreement among those who participated.
- Any thoughts as to all of this? -- LostInRiverview talk · blog · contribs 05:53, April 30, 2020 (UTC)
- Okay, it's been a couple weeks, and in that time, the nomination discussion has received more input. Right now, it's at the point where I'd be more comfortable closing it out, with the outcome being in favor of granting rights. However, I am hesitant to close the discussion and promote the user because I was the one that nominated her in the first place. I've messaged k6ka, the only other active bureaucrat on the wiki, on two separate occasions to ask him to act, but so far he has not.
- Any thoughts as to all of this? -- LostInRiverview talk · blog · contribs 05:53, April 30, 2020 (UTC)
- I'm personally of the belief that consensus exists for the promotion. If there is disagreement over whether that is the case, now is the time to speak up. I'll leave this and the nomination discussion open for three or four more days, unless k6ka decides to act ahead of then. Otherwise, I plan on promoting Gvaudoin myself, unless there is objection here. -- LostInRiverview talk · blog · contribs 18:30, May 13, 2020 (UTC)