The Sims Wiki talk:Admin Portal/resolved discussions 2010
Decommission the 1 week rule for warnings[edit source]
Click here to expand original discussion | |
---|---|
Based on LIR's comment in an earlier discussion and the WP guideline Don't restore removed comments; I think we should get rid of the rule. A 'Badge of Shame' is a bad thing and if they remove it, it's safe to assume they've seen it. As for keeping track of when a block is due after a warning, admins simply need to enter 'warning' in the edit summary and it'll be easy to find in the history. Duskey(talk) 14:12, August 23, 2010 (UTC)
|
Site Notice[edit source]
Click here to expand original discussion | |
---|---|
I've temporarily pulled the Site Notice, since we've had a drop in the number of articles, and best practices suggests keeping messages only on a temporary basis. If you disagree, or notice the article count start to climb again (to within 10, probably), please feel free to revert my edit and reintroduce the countdown. -- Patrick (LostInRiverview) (talk)(blog)(random page) 16:35, August 6, 2010 (UTC):If you do not change the sitenotice ID aswell it doesn't make much sense to clear the sitenotice unless the information gets outdated or invalid. If people dismissed the message they obviously won't see it. If people did not dismiss it, they probably don't mind it or like to keep it in order to keep up with the article count. LIR has re-enabled it already btw. Duskey(talk) 20:35, August 8, 2010 (UTC) |
Digimon spam[edit source]
Click here to expand original discussion | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
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)
List of Digimon spammers[edit source]
Facts[edit source]
Continued discussion[edit source]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)
Fixed[edit source]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) |
Assume Good Faith[edit source]
Click here to expand original discussion | |
---|---|
I've created The Sims Wiki:Assume good faith. It borrows heavily from those policies by the same name on Wikipedia, but it has been changed substantially to fit TSW more readily. Now we don't have to type out [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Assume good faith|assume good faith]] whenever we want to cite that guideline. Please feel free to contribute to it and make improvements. The layout of it roughly follows Wikipedia's (though most section headers have been removed), but if you can think of a more logical way to lay it out, please do so. I'd prefer, as a show of good faith, that we leave it unprotected, so that any user will be able to make a meaningful improvement to it. Which is, after all, what that policy is all about. -- Patrick (LostInRiverview) (talk)(blog)(random page) 22:10, August 23, 2010 (UTC):Good idea. Duskey(talk) 16:42, August 24, 2010 (UTC) |
RIPBrandibroke[edit source]
Click here to expand original discussion | |
---|---|
Since this persons 1 month block was up, they tried to provoke a response from administrators by posting about their previous vandalism [2] [3]. When that didn't work they started trolling Monster, including a threat to "ban" him [4] [5]. RIPBrandibroke was blocked on June 7 2010 for 1 week for vandalising articles with "fanon" and on July 5 2010, this time for 1 month, for the same thing [6]. Monster has as of today blocked them for 1 year, but I would like to suggest a permanent block based on that I do not think this user has any interest in redeeming themself. I would also suggest that the vandal bragging on the user page and blog be deleted. Duskey(talk) 11:57, August 23, 2010 (UTC)
I already perma. blocked him.-- Danny (Monster2821) (talk)(random page) 12:00, August 23, 2010 (UTC) i think he has a sock puppet to.-- Danny (Monster2821) (talk)(random page) 12:09, August 23, 2010 (UTC)
|
Inappropriate player story[edit source]
Click here to expand original discussion | |
---|---|
Monster recently deleted a player story and said it was inappropriate [11] I read it through and I'm not quite sure if it deserved being delete. It contains homo-sexuality, woohoo and infidelity, which are all gameplay elements in The Sims series. It also contains the word sexy. I'd say it's borderline. I'm mostly leaning towards not deleting it, but I'm not sure. --Duskeytalk 02:20, September 6, 2010 (UTC)
|
Warnings[edit source]
Click here to expand original discussion | ||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
I'd like to make a few changes to the way we handle warnings, and specifically the {{warning}} {{subst:warning |type=spam |reason=inserting advertisements in an article |~~~~ }} or {{subst:warning |type=harassment |reason=attacking another user |~~~~ }} or {{subst:warning |type=final |reason=continuing to insert nonsense into articles |~~~~ }} It could be set up to where there is a preset list of types which will produce a warning with different text, images and/or colors. On a related note, Wikipedia has a policy adopted about removing comments from user talk pages; it says that messages on talk pages shouldn't be re-added if removed, as doing so would force a user to keep a badge of shame. I think this is reasonable, so I'd also like to remove any requirement to keep warnings on user talk pages. Since everything is still kept in edit history, it wouldn't be difficult to determine whether someone has already been warned. -- Patrick (LostInRiverview) (talk)(blog)(random page) 17:27, August 10, 2010 (UTC)
We are warning you because of {{{reason}}} This is a friendly reminder to refrain from making unconstructive edits to [[The Sims Wiki]]. Your edits have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the [[The Sims Wiki:Sandbox|sandbox]], or if you need help please either read the [[The Sims Wiki:Policy|policy]] or ask an [[The Sims Wiki:Administrators|administrator]]. You may remove this warning once you have read and understood its meaning. If you continue to vandalize you may be blocked.
|
Simcontributor[edit source]
Click here to expand original discussion | |
---|---|
Moved from User talk:Duskey:
I think SimContributor should receive a permanent block as well as that simsplayer person because they show no sign of change.--Monster2821 (talk) 23:46, September 18, 2010 (UTC)
Time out! Ok, let's not make any rash decisions here, and let's be logical about how we approach this. Please be specific as to why you think User:Should42563 is a sockpuppet? No one is getting blocked until we can be sure. -- Patrick (LostInRiverview) (talk)(blog)(random page) 18:07, September 20, 2010 (UTC)
I would also like to take this opportunity to remind admins not to insult editors depite how many personal attacks you endure. If you find yourself getting angry, take a few breaths before responding to someone, there's no need to provoke editors to say something that will get them warned or blocked. You can also ask a fellow admin to deal with the person if you can't do so without provoking them. In addition, masking profanity as an admin is just as bad as if someone else did it. --Duskeytalk 20:29, September 20, 2010 (UTC)
|
Votes in FA/FM[edit source]
Click here to expand original discussion | |
---|---|
I deleted some votes in the Featured Article and Featured Media pages because they violate, in my view, the Sims Wiki Policies. Namely, the votes were cast by users who have made no edits to the wiki - in some cases, the users only have one edit (that one being the vote they cast). I don't think it's too much to ask that a user make at least one meaningful contribution to the general wiki before they be allowed to participate in votes for featured content. If there's much admin resistance to this, I can undo the deletes. Thoughts? -- LostInRiverview talk · blog 06:44, October 2, 2010 (UTC) |
Do not move images to replace[edit source]
Click here to expand original discussion | |
---|---|
Heads up. After thinking I was clever by moving a better image over a similar image of poor quality, I discovered that it wasn't possible. The old image was still at the original location and the new image had been deleted. I contacted Wikia and they said it's a bug in the MediaWiki version they're currently using. It might be fixed in a new version, but Wikia will most likely not upgrade until some time after the whole Oasis business since that's their focus at the moment.
tldr: Don't move files to replace another file. --Duskeytalk 15:00, September 14, 2010 (UTC) |
Local list users[edit source]
Click here to expand original discussion | |
---|---|
FYI: some users (JAL & Walker guy94) whose sysop rights were revoked are still showing up as sysops on Special:ListUsers. --a_morris (talk) 00:21, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
|
Flame war[edit source]
Click here to expand original discussion | |
---|---|
Admin Only[edit source]Warning Admins Only - This section is open to discussion only by administrators and bureaucrats, as it deals with possible actions to be taken against one or more users of The Sims Wiki. Comments by regular users or unregistered users will be deleted and those users will receive a one-day block. This is your only warning. There has been an incident regarding the actions of Auror Andrachome (talk · contribs · editcount · block · modify rights · logs · block log), in which at least two TSW users (BobNewbie (talk · contribs · editcount · block · modify rights · logs · block log) and Guilherme Guerreiro (talk · contribs · editcount · block · modify rights · logs · block log) ) 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've blocked Auror for 3 days due to [14] & [15]. 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. --Duskeytalk 20:39, October 17, 2010 (UTC)
Regular user response[edit source]Please Observe This section is open for discussion from general members, including members discussed above. Keep the comments clean, calm and logical. If calling for a specific action, be prepared to provide thorough justification for doing so. Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
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)
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)
|
TSW on other sites[edit source]
Click here to expand original discussion | |
---|---|
Moved from the community portal talk Discussion[edit source]Should we register TSW on other sites? I'm thinking facebook and twitter and all that. I'm gonna list some pros and cons:
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) 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)
The next step[edit source]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)
Like Button code[edit source]Like Button code:
<fb:like href="http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Sims-Wiki/126686564044617"></fb:like> or <fb:like href="http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Sims-Wiki/126686564044617" layout="button_count"></fb:like> Announced[edit source]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[edit source]
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)
No longer relevant:It is no longer relevant 'cause stuff. --Duskeytalk 13:14, September 13, 2010 (UTC)
New 'Resolved Discussions' layout[edit source]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: {| 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 |- |The text that is being hidden goes here |} 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) |
User with multiple accounts[edit source]
Click here to expand original discussion | |
---|---|
I'm beginning to suspect a user for using multiple accounts to skew the votes of the featured content in their favor. The user has the most edits on God of the sims. I requested a CheckUser by Wikia staff and have just recieved a reply. It revealed that a series of usernames have edited from the same two IPs. Note that I am only listing the IPs since they're readily available in the wiki history and were chosen with the exact same criterias as the usernames.
Note that 'God of the sims' is the only user out these to have edits outside the votes and even then it's limited to user page and my talk page. I know that IPs can be dynamic, but based on the timestamps and the similar edits of these users, I believe they are all the same person. Do you agree? If they are all the same, what do we do about it? I would suggest removing all the votes and blocking each user permanently with the exception of God of the sims, which will recieve a limited, but harsh block. The person is clearly capable of changing IP so the IPs shouldn't be blocked. --Duskeytalk 09:09, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
Well, since users can always log out and vote with their IP, the only way to prevent this is to forbid IP users from voting. I also think that a minimum of contributions requirement should be implemented, it's the only way to keep obvious sockpuppets from voting multiple times. We can't prevent people from doing it 100%, but we can discourage it. --Duskeytalk 11:15, October 9, 2010 (UTC) |
User:The Sims 3 Late Night[edit source]
Click here to expand original discussion | |
---|---|
What's the policy on someone using a game title as a username? Dharden (talk) 22:46, October 21, 2010 (UTC)
|
User:Vampire1901[edit source]
Click here to expand original discussion | |
---|---|
user:Vampire1901 is a Sock of simcontributor because he said his sim3.com username is:Elizabeth2345 on darthcookie's talkpage And Simcontributor said his sim3.com username is:Elizabeth2345 too. on his userpage.--Monster2821 (Talk) 20:11, October 28, 2010 (UTC)
If you look at Special:Contributions/Vampire1901, you can see that the account was active while Simcontributor was blocked. Both User:Simcontributor and User talk:DarthCookie#Re: Rollback Request both mention the username, Elizabeth2345. I am usually on the IRC channel so feel free to ask me for any more information. GEORGIEGIBBONS talk contributions 20:19, October 28, 2010 (UTC)
I see that Vampire1901 is back. Since they weren't given a permanent block, should we give them one last chance? Dharden (talk) 16:22, November 22, 2010 (UTC) |
User:Makii4[edit source]
Click here to expand original discussion | |
---|---|
All this user has done is upload fake box art for nonexistent EPs. The images are not placed on any pages, and the user does not provide any evidence that there is even a rumor about those EPs. I have notified this user that the images will be unless they can point to rumors about those EPs - but it they persist in uploading such images, can we do more than just delete them as they appear? Dharden (talk) 03:40, November 26, 2010 (UTC)
|
Top 10[edit source]
Click here to expand original discussion | |
---|---|
Attn. Admins,
In about a day I will be sending in a contact to Wikia to have them activate the 'Top 10' feature (as described here). If you have any objections to this, please say so before I make contact. -- LostInRiverview talk · blog 18:38, December 16, 2010 (UTC)
Top 10 has now been activated, and polls are being created. If there is something in a Top 10 that is inappropriate or needs to be deleted, click on 'edit' and delete the item from the list. Comments can be deleted too, or edited for content. -- LostInRiverview talk · blog 08:40, December 19, 2010 (UTC) |