(Created page with '{{Archive}} {{TOClimit|2}} == Decommission the 1 week rule for warnings == 40px|left''Resolved: Seeing no opposition, ''{{t|Warning}}'' has been mo…')
|Discussions located on this page are generally considered to be resolved. Please do not make edits to or remove the discussions on this page. If there is need to re-open a discussion, please begin a new section on the main talk page and provide a link to any resolved discussions on this page.
----
{{The Sims Wiki talk:Admin Portal/resolved discussions list}}
}}
{{TOClimit|2}}
{{TOClimit|2}}
== Decommission the 1 week rule for warnings ==
== Decommission the 1 week rule for warnings ==
[[File:Icon_yes_check_v.svg|40px|left]]''Resolved: Seeing no opposition, ''{{t|Warning}}'' has been modified to remove the one-week requirement. An explanation has been placed in the descriptionspace explaining the change.'' -- [[User:LostInRiverview|Patrick (LostInRiverview)]]<small> ([[User_talk:LostInRiverview|talk]])([[User_blog:LostInRiverview|blog]])([[Special:Random|random page]])</small> 00:32, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
{{Resolved/mini|res| Seeing no opposition, ''{{t|Warning}}'' has been modified to remove the one-week requirement. An explanation has been placed in the template documentation explaining the change. -- [[User:LostInRiverview|Patrick (LostInRiverview)]]<small> ([[User_talk:LostInRiverview|talk]])([[User_blog:LostInRiverview|blog]])([[Special:Random|random page]])</small> 00:32, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
!bgcolor="#FFDDCC"|Click here to expand original discussion →
! colspan="2" style="text-align:center;" |Click here to expand original discussion
|-
|-
|Based on LIR's comment in an earlier discussion and the WP guideline [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Don't restore removed comments|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. '''[[User:Duskey|Duskey]]'''<small>([[User_talk:Duskey|<span style="color:green;">talk</span>]])</small> 14:12, August 23, 2010 (UTC)
|Based on LIR's comment in an earlier discussion and the WP guideline [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Don't restore removed comments|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. '''[[User:Duskey|Duskey]]'''<small>([[User_talk:Duskey|<span style="color:green;">talk</span>]])</small> 14:12, August 23, 2010 (UTC)
:My only concern for placing warnings in the history is that they may be just a little hard to find. Might I suggest something like adding a wiki-link in the summary, perhaps to [[Template:Warning]], and also perhaps to [[The Sims Wiki:Policy]] page to cite a specific rule-breakage. For example:
:My only concern for placing warnings in the history is that they may be just a little hard to find. Might I suggest something like adding a wiki-link in the summary, perhaps to [[Template:Warning]], and also perhaps to [[The Sims Wiki:Policy]] page to cite a specific rule-breakage. For example:
Line 20:
Line 25:
::So in short: Dislike warning logging, dislike "decorating" warning edit summaries, dislike 1 week non-removal rule of warnings. '''[[User:Duskey|Duskey]]'''<small>([[User_talk:Duskey|<span style="color:green;">talk</span>]])</small> 16:49, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
::So in short: Dislike warning logging, dislike "decorating" warning edit summaries, dislike 1 week non-removal rule of warnings. '''[[User:Duskey|Duskey]]'''<small>([[User_talk:Duskey|<span style="color:green;">talk</span>]])</small> 16:49, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
|}
|}
{{clr}}
== Site Notice ==
== Site Notice ==
[[File:Red_x_cross_uncheck_bad.svg|40px|left]] ''No longer relevant, as 5,000 article milestone has come and passed. Similar discussion regarding the site notice should occur in a new section.'' -- [[User:LostInRiverview|Patrick (LostInRiverview)]]<small> ([[User_talk:LostInRiverview|talk]])([[User_blog:LostInRiverview|blog]])([[Special:Random|random page]])</small> 20:08, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
{{Resolved/mini|nlr| 5,000 article milestone has come and passed. Similar discussion regarding the site notice should occur in a new section. -- [[User:LostInRiverview|Patrick (LostInRiverview)]]<small> ([[User_talk:LostInRiverview|talk]])([[User_blog:LostInRiverview|blog]])([[Special:Random|random page]])</small> 20:08, August 27, 2010 (UTC)}}
! colspan="2" style="text-align:center;" |Click here to expand original discussion
{|class="wikitable collapsible collapsed"
!bgcolor="#FFDDCC"|Click here to expand original discussion →
|-
|-
|I've temporarily pulled the [[MediaWiki:Sitenotice|Site Notice]], since we've had a drop in the number of articles, and [[w:c:Help:Site notice#Best Practices|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. -- [[User:LostInRiverview|Patrick (LostInRiverview)]]<small> ([[User_talk:LostInRiverview|talk]])([[User_blog:LostInRiverview|blog]])([[Special:Random|random page]])</small> 16:35, August 6, 2010 (UTC)
|I've temporarily pulled the [[MediaWiki:Sitenotice|Site Notice]], since we've had a drop in the number of articles, and [[w:c:Help:Site notice#Best Practices|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. -- [[User:LostInRiverview|Patrick (LostInRiverview)]]<small> ([[User_talk:LostInRiverview|talk]])([[User_blog:LostInRiverview|blog]])([[Special:Random|random page]])</small> 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. '''[[User:Duskey|Duskey]]'''<small>([[User_talk:Duskey|<span style="color:green;">talk</span>]])</small> 20:35, August 8, 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. '''[[User:Duskey|Duskey]]'''<small>([[User_talk:Duskey|<span style="color:green;">talk</span>]])</small> 20:35, August 8, 2010 (UTC)
|}
|}
{{clr}}
==Digimon spam==
==Digimon spam==
[[File:Icon_yes_check_v.svg|40px|left]]''Resolved: Universal blacklisted item may stop ongoing problems; if problems persist, may consider a range block of responsible IP addresses.'' -- [[User:LostInRiverview|Patrick (LostInRiverview)]]<small> ([[User_talk:LostInRiverview|talk]])([[User_blog:LostInRiverview|blog]])([[Special:Random|random page]])</small> 22:41, August 28, 2010 (UTC)
{{Resolved/mini|res| Universal blacklisted item may stop ongoing problems; if problems persist, may consider a range block of responsible IP addresses. -- [[User:LostInRiverview|Patrick (LostInRiverview)]]<small> ([[User_talk:LostInRiverview|talk]])([[User_blog:LostInRiverview|blog]])([[Special:Random|random page]])</small> 22:41, August 28, 2010 (UTC)}}
! colspan="2" style="text-align:center;" |Click here to expand original discussion
{|class="wikitable collapsible collapsed"
!bgcolor="#FFDDCC"|Click here to expand original discussion →
|-
|-
|''Original article from development portal talk:''
|''Original article from development portal talk:''
Line 122:
Line 125:
I finally convinced [http://vstf.wikia.com/index.php?title=Titles,_content,_or_summaries_for_blacklisting&oldid=5569 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. '''[[User:Duskey|Duskey]]'''<small>([[User_talk:Duskey|<span style="color:green;">talk</span>]])</small> 19:40, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
I finally convinced [http://vstf.wikia.com/index.php?title=Titles,_content,_or_summaries_for_blacklisting&oldid=5569 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. '''[[User:Duskey|Duskey]]'''<small>([[User_talk:Duskey|<span style="color:green;">talk</span>]])</small> 19:40, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
|}
|}
{{clr}}
== Assume Good Faith ==
== Assume Good Faith ==
[[File:Icon_yes_check_v.svg|40px|left]]''Resolved: [[The Sims Wiki:Assume good faith]] has been created, and is open for community discussion and improvement.'' -- [[User:LostInRiverview|Patrick (LostInRiverview)]]<small> ([[User_talk:LostInRiverview|talk]])([[User_blog:LostInRiverview|blog]])([[Special:Random|random page]])</small> 22:41, August 28, 2010 (UTC)
{{Resolved/mini|res| [[The Sims Wiki:Assume good faith]] has been created, and is open for community discussion and improvement.'' -- [[User:LostInRiverview|Patrick (LostInRiverview)]]<small> ([[User_talk:LostInRiverview|talk]])([[User_blog:LostInRiverview|blog]])([[Special:Random|random page]])</small> 22:41, August 28, 2010 (UTC)}}
! colspan="2" style="text-align:center;" |Click here to expand original discussion
{|class="wikitable collapsible collapsed"
!bgcolor="#FFDDCC"|Click here to expand original discussion →
|-
|-
|I've created [[The Sims Wiki:Assume good faith]]. It borrows heavily from [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Assume good faith|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 <nowiki>[[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Assume good faith|assume good faith]]</nowiki> 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. -- [[User:LostInRiverview|Patrick (LostInRiverview)]]<small> ([[User_talk:LostInRiverview|talk]])([[User_blog:LostInRiverview|blog]])([[Special:Random|random page]])</small> 22:10, August 23, 2010 (UTC)
|I've created [[The Sims Wiki:Assume good faith]]. It borrows heavily from [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Assume good faith|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 <nowiki>[[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Assume good faith|assume good faith]]</nowiki> 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. -- [[User:LostInRiverview|Patrick (LostInRiverview)]]<small> ([[User_talk:LostInRiverview|talk]])([[User_blog:LostInRiverview|blog]])([[Special:Random|random page]])</small> 22:10, August 23, 2010 (UTC):Good idea. '''[[User:Duskey|Duskey]]'''<small>([[User_talk:Duskey|<span style="color:green;">talk</span>]])</small> 16:42, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
:Good idea. '''[[User:Duskey|Duskey]]'''<small>([[User_talk:Duskey|<span style="color:green;">talk</span>]])</small> 16:42, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
|}
|}
{{clr}}
== RIPBrandibroke ==
{{Resolved/mini|res| User:{{Userlinks|RIPBrandibroke}} has been permanently banned due to repeated vandalism and bad behavior. This matter is not open for discussion from regular users. -- 22:47, September 11, 2010 (UTC)}}
! colspan="2" style="text-align:center;" |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 [http://sims.wikia.com/index.php?title=User:RIPBrandibroke&oldid=168591] [http://sims.wikia.com/index.php?title=User_blog:RIPBrandibroke/hello&oldid=168092]. When that didn't work they started trolling Monster, including a threat to "ban" him [http://sims.wikia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Monster2821&diff=prev&oldid=168590] [http://sims.wikia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Monster2821&diff=prev&oldid=170024]. [[User:RIPBrandibroke|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 [http://sims.wikia.com/wiki/Special:Block/RIPBrandibroke]. 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. '''[[User:Duskey|Duskey]]'''<small>([[User_talk:Duskey|<span style="color:green;">talk</span>]])</small> 11:57, August 23, 2010 (UTC)
I already perma. blocked him.--[[user:Monster2821| Danny (Monster2821)]]<small> ([[user talk:Monster2821|talk]])([[special:random|random page]])</small> 12:00, August 23, 2010 (UTC)
i think he has a sock puppet to.--[[user:Monster2821| Danny (Monster2821)]]<small> ([[user talk:Monster2821|talk]])([[special:random|random page]])</small> 12:09, August 23, 2010 (UTC)
:I noticed an auto-block triggering after their block, which means they have another account. Bleeh pointed out that here [http://sims.wikia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Monster2821&diff=170024&oldid=169879] they sign their name with Iesha. Bleeh remembered that name as a former vandal and sure enough [[User:Iesha Parsons]], blocked for 3 days on July 13, 2010. If you see their user pages [http://sims.wikia.com/wiki/User:RIPBrandibroke] [http://sims.wikia.com/wiki/User:Iesha_Parsons] the writing is almost identical. Iesha's contributions also reveal that they've been editing RIPBrandibroke's talk page as if it was their own [http://sims.wikia.com/wiki/Special:Contributions/Iesha_Parsons]. I'm fully convinced that it is the same person, I'm just looking for some backup before blocking it as well. As long the RIPBrandibroke's block is up, they will only be able to edit from the other account if they switch IP's somehow so we don't need to rush this decision, but I'd sleep better at night knowing all their sockpuppets were gone. '''[[User:Duskey|Duskey]]'''<small>([[User_talk:Duskey|<span style="color:green;">talk</span>]])</small> 16:41, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
:I see Monster blocked that account as well. '''[[User:Duskey|Duskey]]'''<small>([[User_talk:Duskey|<span style="color:green;">talk</span>]])</small> 10:01, August 25, 2010 (UTC)
|}
{{clr}}
== Inappropriate player story ==
{{Resolved/mini|nlr| Deleted player story was re-added by the administrator that deleted it.'' -- 22:49, September 11, 2010 (UTC)}}
! colspan="2" style="text-align:center;" |Click here to expand original discussion
|-
|Monster recently deleted a player story and said it was inappropriate [http://sims.wikia.com/index.php?title=Shyla_Curtis/Player_stories&curid=32965&diff=176916&oldid=157396] 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. '''--[[User:Duskey|<span style="color:#344790;">Duskey</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Duskey|<span style="color:green;">talk</span>]]</sup>''' 02:20, September 6, 2010 (UTC)
:I say undelete. That doesn't seem all that inappropriate, to be honest. -- [[User:LostInRiverview|Patrick (LostInRiverview)]]<small> ([[User_talk:LostInRiverview|talk]])([[User_blog:LostInRiverview|blog]])([[Special:Random|random page]])</small> 03:16, September 6, 2010 (UTC)
::It was undeleted long ago. Matter resolved. '''--[[User:Duskey|<span style="color:#344790;">Duskey</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Duskey|<span style="color:green;">talk</span>]]</sup>''' 19:46, September 10, 2010 (UTC)
|}
{{clr}}
== Warnings ==
{{Resolved/mini|res| {{t|Warning}} template wording has been edited, and a new {{t|tempblock}} template has been created. Issue regarding non-removal policy for warnings was already addressed and resolved [[The Sims Wiki talk:Admin Portal/resolved discussions#Decommission the 1 week rule for warnings|here]].-- 20:58, September 20, 2010 (UTC)}}
! colspan="2" style="text-align:center;" |Click here to expand original discussion
|-
|I'd like to make a few changes to the way we handle warnings, and specifically the {{t|warning}} <s>and <nowiki>{{warning2}}</nowiki></s> templates. Presently, we really only have two types of warnings; one for unconstructive edits, and another for negative behavior. I think it would be better to get rid of Warning2 and combine both into the Warning template, with the addition of another parameter. So, entering a warning would look something like this:
<pre>{{subst:warning
|type=spam
|reason=inserting advertisements in an article
|~~~~
}}</pre>
or
<pre>{{subst:warning
|type=harassment
|reason=attacking another user
|~~~~
}}</pre>
or
<pre>{{subst:warning
|type=final
|reason=continuing to insert nonsense into articles
|~~~~
}}</pre>
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 [[wikipedia:Wikipedia:Don't_restore_removed_comments|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. -- [[User:LostInRiverview|Patrick (LostInRiverview)]]<small> ([[User_talk:LostInRiverview|talk]])([[User_blog:LostInRiverview|blog]])([[Special:Random|random page]])</small> 17:27, August 10, 2010 (UTC)
:It sounds good to me, thumbs up. I also support the idea of scrapping the 1 week rule of not deleting the warning. As long as people issueing the warning put 'warning' in the edit summary, we can always spot it if need be. '''[[User:Duskey|Duskey]]'''<small>([[User_talk:Duskey|<span style="color:green;">talk</span>]])</small> 22:53, August 10, 2010 (UTC)
|colspan="2" align="center"|<div style="padding:3px; background-color: #3571C3; -moz-border-radius: 7px; color:white;"><big>'''This is a warning'''</big></div>
|-
|[[File:Marcela-Badeau.jpg|75px|right]]
|<center><big>We are warning you because of {{{reason}}}.</big></center><center>This is a friendly reminder to refrain from making unconstructive edits to [[The Sims Wiki]]. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and 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|admin]]. Please do not remove this warning for 1 week, unless an admin says differently. If you continue to vandalize you may be blocked.'''''Thank you'''''.<br />— {{{1}}}</center>
|colspan="2" align="center"|<div style="padding:3px; background-color: #FF8800; -moz-border-radius: 7px; color:white;"><big>'''This is a final warning'''</big></div>
|-
|[[File:Marcela-Badeau.jpg|75px|right]]
|<center><big>We are warning you because of {{{reason}}}.</big></center><center>This is a friendly reminder to refrain from making unconstructive edits to [[The Sims Wiki]]. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and 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|admin]]. Please do not remove this warning for 1 week, unless an admin says differently. If you continue to vandalize you may be blocked.'''''Thank you'''''.<br />— {{{1}}}</center>
|colspan="2" align="center"|<div style="padding:3px; background-color: #991100; -moz-border-radius: 7px; color:white;"><big>'''You have been temporarily blocked'''</big></div>
|-
|[[File:Marcela-Badeau.jpg|75px|right]]
|<center><big>We are temporarily blocking you because of {{{1}}}.</big></center><center>You have ignored a warning or grossly violated The Sims Wiki [[The Sims Wiki:Policy|policies]]. For this reason you have been temporarily blocked. Any similar action immidiately after this block expires may result in a permanent block. You may remove this message once you have read and understood it.Your temporary block expires on {{{2}}}. — {{{3}}}</center>
|}
I mean just the colors, I haven't changed the wording of the final warning. '''[[User:Duskey|Duskey]]'''<small>([[User_talk:Duskey|<span style="color:green;">talk</span>]])</small> 14:19, August 23, 2010 (UTC)
:One suggestion; on the temp block template, include in the 2nd parameter a spot for time... so instead of it saying something like August 27, 2010, it will give the exact time when a block expires (August 27, 2010 at 12:37:00) -- 00:37, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
::I can easily do that, but it'll be harder for North Americans since the times listed on the block list is in local time and we should output time in UTC. '''[[User:Duskey|Duskey]]'''<small>([[User_talk:Duskey|<span style="color:green;">talk</span>]])</small> 16:10, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
::Here's a suggestion for a catch-all rewording of the warning template:
<pre>
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.
</pre>
::The reason field should be used to explain what sort of incident it was. I'm not sure I see much point in having multiple warning templates or even a final warning template if we keep the wording flexible enough. Personally I've always notified a person if they've done something borderline. If it happens again, I warn them and the third time it's a block. This is all situational of course. '''[[User:Duskey|Duskey]]'''<small>([[User_talk:Duskey|<span style="color:green;">talk</span>]])</small> 20:02, August 29, 2010 (UTC)
::I updated the wording in both warning and tempblock. If you ask me I'd say they're complete now. '''--[[User:Duskey|<span style="color:#344790;">Duskey</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Duskey|<span style="color:green;">talk</span>]]</sup>''' 02:43, September 6, 2010 (UTC)
|}
{{clr}}
== [[User:Simcontributor|Simcontributor]] ==
{{Resolved/mini|res| [[User:Simcontributor|Simcontributor]] has received a month-long block, which will expire on October 19. Issues regarding this user should be discussed in a new section. 06:57, October 2, 2010 (UTC)}}
! colspan="2" style="text-align:center;" |Click here to expand original discussion
|-
|''Moved from [[User talk:Duskey]]:''
I think [[User:Simcontributor|SimContributor]] should receive a permanent block as well as that simsplayer person because they show no sign of change.--[[user:Monster2821|Monster2821]] ([[user talk:Monster2821|talk]]) 23:46, September 18, 2010 (UTC)
:done?,it was only a month.--[[user:Monster2821|Monster2821]] ([[user talk:Monster2821|talk]]) 12:50, September 19, 2010 (UTC)
::Huh? I meant I blocked him. - [[User:JEA13|<font color="orange">'''JEA13'''</font>]] <sup><nowiki>[</nowiki>[[User talk:JEA13|<font color="orange">iTalk</font>]]<nowiki>]</nowiki></sup> 12:59, September 19, 2010 (UTC)
:i mean't to say why did you block him for only a month?--[[user:Monster2821|Monster2821]] ([[user talk:Monster2821|talk]]) 13:45, September 19, 2010 (UTC)
::Because the things he did were worth of a single month ban, that's all. :P - 13:51, September 19, 2010 (UTC)
:::I think a permanent and even a month is a bit harsh. I'd love for us to discuss this. Can we state what the person has done recently? Please add to the list below. As for their prior staff it only culminated in a 1 day block after a warning. I think it's too soon for a permanent block.
:::*Minor personal attack against Duskey [http://sims.wikia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Duskey&diff=182667&oldid=182609]
:::*Adding info to the now deleted '''Sims 3 Pets''' article
:::'''--[[User:Duskey|<span style="color:#344790;">Duskey</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Duskey|<span style="color:green;">talk</span>]]</sup>''' 22:13, September 19, 2010 (UTC)
::::I haven't noticed a lot of bad behavior on their part, but I take it that there are some problems. I'm hesitant to issue bans, but I would say that this user should receive a final warning, telling them that any violation of policies may warrant their immediate and permanent removal, due to receiving warnings and disciplinary actions in the past. Tell them that they can contribute as much as they want, so long as the contributions are positive and constructive to the wiki, and that they observe the policies and guidelines that exist here. Allow this user a chance to redeem their behavior; if the choose not to do so, then follow through with longer blocks or a perm. ban. -- [[User:LostInRiverview|Patrick (LostInRiverview)]]<small> ([[User_talk:LostInRiverview|talk]])([[User_blog:LostInRiverview|blog]])([[Special:Random|random page]])</small> 22:17, September 19, 2010 (UTC)
::Now the user [http://sims.wikia.com/index.php?title=Simcontributor&oldid=183926 is socking]. Requesting permanant block of Simcontributor and his sock, Should42563. I don't find it coincidential at all that Should is his father as they both seem very similar. [[User:GEORGIEGIBBONS|GEORGIEGIBBONS]] ([[User talk:GEORGIEGIBBONS|talk]]) 17:55, September 20, 2010 (UTC)
::Yeah it is a sock I think, she should talks just like Simcontributor. ---[[User:Guilherme Guerreiro|Guilherme Guerreiro]] 18:01, September 20, 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. -- [[User:LostInRiverview|Patrick (LostInRiverview)]]<small> ([[User_talk:LostInRiverview|talk]])([[User_blog:LostInRiverview|blog]])([[Special:Random|random page]])</small> 18:07, September 20, 2010 (UTC)
::Should42563 created a page for Simcontributor as well as having a similar writing style and the fact that Should appeared not long after Simcontributor was given a month block. [[User:GEORGIEGIBBONS|GEORGIEGIBBONS]] ([[User talk:GEORGIEGIBBONS|talk]]) 18:09, September 20, 2010 (UTC)
:::The problem I have with this is that essentially everyone here has broken down into hysterics. Realize that currently, Simcontributor is under a permanent block (since yesterday) and Should42563 is under a 3-day block for removing content from talk pages. So, the idea that we need to act right away should stop right now. We have plenty of time to discuss this rationally and decide what we should do; should both Simcontributor and Should42563 be tied together as socks and permanently banned or not? This is a decision that the administrators need to make, not the regular users. -- [[User:LostInRiverview|Patrick (LostInRiverview)]]<small> ([[User_talk:LostInRiverview|talk]])([[User_blog:LostInRiverview|blog]])([[Special:Random|random page]])</small> 18:17, September 20, 2010 (UTC)
::::I can go along with a one-month block plus a final warning. I was under the impression that he was leaving anyway. and will confess that I hoped he would not be hit by the door as he did. Still, if he comes back, behaves himself, and contributes constructively, so much the better. If he messes up again, give him the boot. As for Should42563, I'm not prepared to say that this user is a sock, but I'm also not prepared to say they aren't. [[User:Dharden|Dharden]] ([[User_talk:Dharden|talk]]) 19:04, September 20, 2010 (UTC)
:::::I support changing the block for Simcontributor to one month along with a final warning. If Simcontributor steps out of line again, I would support a permanent block. As for Should42563 we can't be certain it's a sockpuppet since it's a different IP (or they would be blocked too). A 3-day block seems harsh if their only unconstructive edits are creating a main namespace article and removing talk page content. Let's keep 3-day ban and I'll leave a message on both talk pages. Remember to assume good faith, these two users should be dealt with seperately. '''--[[User:Duskey|<span style="color:#344790;">Duskey</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Duskey|<span style="color:green;">talk</span>]]</sup>''' 20:29, 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. '''--[[User:Duskey|<span style="color:#344790;">Duskey</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Duskey|<span style="color:green;">talk</span>]]</sup>''' 20:29, September 20, 2010 (UTC)
:To wrap this up, here is where we stand as of now: [[User:Simcontributor|Simcontributor]] is blocked for about a month (expires October 19th) and [[User:Should42563|Should42563]] has received a 3-day block. Simcontributor is currently on final notice, meaning if they violate policies once their block ends, they will receive a permanent ban. We are choosing not to pursue the issue of any alleged sockpuppets without further evidence, meaning that these two users will be treated as separate users.
:A note to users - though this place is a good location for alerting administrators as to goings-on on the wiki, it's not the right place for users to debate whether a user should receive a block, especially a permanent one. Please allow the administrators time to discuss and come to a conclusion without being bombarded with messages here and on talk pages. Also, please don't throw out suggestions for permanent blocks - if the admins feel a user should be blocked permanently, we will do so.
::'''This issue is resolved, pending further actions from the users involved.''' If an issue arises, it should be discussed in a new topic section. -- [[User:LostInRiverview|Patrick (LostInRiverview)]]<small> ([[User_talk:LostInRiverview|talk]])([[User_blog:LostInRiverview|blog]])([[Special:Random|random page]])</small> 20:53, September 20, 2010 (UTC)
|}
{{clr}}
== Votes in FA/FM ==
{{Resolved/mini|res| Votes from the [[The Sims Wiki:Featured Article/Voting|Featured Article]] and [[The Sims Wiki:Featured Media/Voting|Featured Media]] vote pages were deleted because the users who made them did not have any mainspace edits, which are required by [[The Sims Wiki:Policy|policies]]. 23:09, October 21, 2010 (UTC)}}
! colspan="2" style="text-align:center;" |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? -- '''[[User:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">LostInRiverview</font>]]<sup> [[User_talk:LostInRiverview|<font color="navy">talk</font>]] · [[User_blog:LostInRiverview|<font color="navy">blog</font>]]</sup>''' 06:44, October 2, 2010 (UTC)
:Sounds good to me. '''--[[User:Duskey|<span style="color:#344790;">Duskey</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Duskey|<span style="color:green;">talk</span>]]</sup>''' 11:15, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
|}
{{clr}}
== Do not move images to replace ==
{{Resolved/mini|res| Don't move files to replace another file, as it doesn't work. 23:10, October 21, 2010 (UTC)}}
! colspan="2" style="text-align:center;" |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. '''--[[User:Duskey|<span style="color:#344790;">Duskey</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Duskey|<span style="color:green;">talk</span>]]</sup>''' 15:00, September 14, 2010 (UTC)
|}
{{clr}}
== Local list users ==
{{resolved/mini|res| [[Special:ListUsers]] is now functioning correctly. 15:41, October 29, 2010 (UTC)}}
! colspan="2" style="text-align:center;" |Click here to expand original discussion
|-
|FYI: some users ([[User:JAL|JAL]] & [[User:Walker guy94|Walker guy94]]) whose sysop rights were revoked are still showing up as sysops on [[Special:ListUsers]]. --[[User:A_morris|a_morris]] <small>([[User_talk:A_morris|talk]])</small> 00:21, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
:I've noticed some other issues with the listusers page, mainly that it indicates that no one has edited at all since August. I've already tried contacting Wikia regarding the page, but I've received no response. I'm assuming that they'll get around to fixing it after the new skin has officially taken over (and after they work the kinks out of it). --'''[[User:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">LostInRiverview</font>]]<sup> [[User_talk:LostInRiverview|<font color="navy">talk</font>]] · [[User_blog:LostInRiverview|<font color="navy">blog</font>]]</sup>''' 03:39, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
::Yeah, also I'm not listed as a rolback user there. ---[[User:Guilherme Guerreiro|Guilherme Guerreiro]] 09:00, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
::Duskey is also not listed as a bureaucrat. ---[[User:Guilherme Guerreiro|Guilherme Guerreiro]] 11:24, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
:::[[Special:ListUsers]] is now functioning correctly. -- '''[[User:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">LostInRiverview</font>]]<sup> [[User_talk:LostInRiverview|<font color="navy">talk</font>]] · [[User_blog:LostInRiverview|<font color="navy">blog</font>]]</sup>''' 15:41, October 29, 2010 (UTC)
|}
{{clr}}
== Flame war ==
{{resolved/mini|res| Participants in the flame war understand that continued attacks on others will result in permanent bans or other severe punishments. Users also understand that edit warring will not be tolerated. Further discussion of this issue should occur in a new section. 15:43, October 29, 2010 (UTC)}}
! colspan="2" style="text-align:center;" |Click here to expand original discussion
|-
|
===Admin Only===
{{warning-header
|'''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 {{userlinks|Auror Andrachome}}, in which at least two TSW users ({{userlinks|BobNewbie}} and {{Userlinks|Guilherme Guerreiro}} ) 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? -- '''[[User:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">LostInRiverview</font>]]<sup> [[User_talk:LostInRiverview|<font color="navy">talk</font>]] · [[User_blog:LostInRiverview|<font color="navy">blog</font>]]</sup>''' 21:12, October 16, 2010 (UTC)
:I think auror should be banned forever because she has been negative to me on irc and tsw and to the people mentioned above.
:::I don't think a user should be banned just because they're a little abrasive. However, if there was a consensus that her behavior has been consistently detrimental, then there would be grounds to do something. -- '''[[User:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">LostInRiverview</font>]]<sup> [[User_talk:LostInRiverview|<font color="navy">talk</font>]] · [[User_blog:LostInRiverview|<font color="navy">blog</font>]]</sup>''' 22:04, October 16, 2010 (UTC)
:Any pointers on where to look to get up to speed on all of this? Perhaps a quick recap with links would be sweet. I can't really give my opinion on something I know nothing about. '''--[[User:Duskey|<span style="color:#344790;">Duskey</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Duskey|<span style="color:green;">talk</span>]]</sup>''' 22:19, October 16, 2010 (UTC)
::I suggest edit wars are handled as normal: Warn, block, block longer, block even longer etc. as always. This goes for both participants. If someone disagrees with another users edit, it's a good idea to contact that user on their talk page and see if you can reach some sort of agreement there. If not, take it to the talk page of the article and see what other people think. I don't suggest any further action unless new violations of policies and normal conduct is made. '''--[[User:Duskey|<span style="color:#344790;">Duskey</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Duskey|<span style="color:green;">talk</span>]]</sup>''' 22:55, October 16, 2010 (UTC)
:::This is really about more than edit warring - if it were a simple case of an edit war, I wouldn't be bothered to even bring it up. This is about the conduct of members of this community. I think we need to decide what we are willing to accept from our members, whether the actions made by Auror can be allowed to stand, or whether we are going to allow open hostility towards Auror by the other members. We don't have any real policies that dictate what to do here. -- '''[[User:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">LostInRiverview</font>]]<sup> [[User_talk:LostInRiverview|<font color="navy">talk</font>]] · [[User_blog:LostInRiverview|<font color="navy">blog</font>]]</sup>''' 23:04, October 16, 2010 (UTC)
::::Here's some pages on Wikipedia: [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Civility|Wikipedia:Civility]], [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Edit warring|Wikipedia:Edit warring]], [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Disruptive editing#Dealing with disruptive editors|Wikipedia:Disruptive editing#Dealing with disruptive editors]], [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Requests for comment|Wikipedia:Requests for comment]] (this would appear to be the stage we are at), [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring|Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring]] (examples of disputes and resolutions.)
::::I don't know what the specific issue was but from what I saw, all three of them participated in incivility/personal attacks, but only {{userlinks|Auror Andrachome}} and {{Userlinks|Guilherme Guerreiro}} were involved in an edit war, correct?, and the three-revert rule would apply to them. A brief block may be necessary for all involved (already done.) Once consensus is reached on the content issue (if not already) and they continue to edit-war, a stricter revert rule may be put in place for the users and topic(s) involved or a longer block. --[[User:A_morris|a_morris]] <small>([[User_talk:A_morris|talk]])</small> 17:27, October 17, 2010 (UTC)
I've blocked '''Auror''' for 3 days due to [http://sims.wikia.com/index.php?title=Beverly_Castor&diff=prev&oldid=193773] & [http://sims.wikia.com/index.php?title=Beverly_Castor&diff=193779&oldid=193777]. 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. '''--[[User:Duskey|<span style="color:#344790;">Duskey</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Duskey|<span style="color:green;">talk</span>]]</sup>''' 20:39, October 17, 2010 (UTC)
:Consequently I've also blocked '''Guilherme''' for 1 day since he has recieved a warning for this earlier. '''--[[User:Duskey|<span style="color:#344790;">Duskey</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Duskey|<span style="color:green;">talk</span>]]</sup>''' 21:11, October 17, 2010 (UTC)
===Regular user response===
{{info
|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.}}
*I think Auror must receive ''only ''a warn about her behaviour, I think she was a bit mean to many users on this wiki and she doesn't want to change her mind and reactions on here. Thanks --- [[User:Guilherme Guerreiro|Guilherme Guerreiro]] <small>([[User_talk:Guilherme Guerreiro|talk here]])</small> 22:07, October 16, 2010 (UTC)
*I agree that RodrigoX, GG, BobNewbie, and myself should all just get warnings and no perma-bans for any of us since all of us are hard-working users who just want to help out and add new information. {{AurorSig}}
**I don't want to sound like a victim, but I didn't do much to receive a warning; I just commented on you guys wars. Sure that I disliked Auror's bbehaviour, but I didn't actually entered in the war, I just commented, which IMO isn't that harsh to get a warning... --- » [[User:Rodrigo X|<font color="red">'''Яσdяigσ X'''</font>]] <sup>[[User_talk:Rodrigo X|<font color="gold">[̲̅т̲̅α̲̅l̲̅k̲̅]</font>]]</sup><sub>[[User_blog:Rodrigo X|<font color="green">[̲̅b̲̅l̲̅σ̲̅g̲̅]</font>]]</sub> « 11:50, October 17, 2010 (UTC)
*Yes you're right Auror, me and you should receive warns, Rodrigo X not and BobNewbie maybe a friendly one (Note: I don't see you as an enemy and I hope we could repair our relationship)---[[User:Guilherme Guerreiro|Guilherme Guerreiro]] <small>([[User_talk:Guilherme Guerreiro|talk here]])</small> 10:32, October 17, 2010 (UTC)
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.[[User:Bafendo|Bafendo]] 04:06, October 17, 2010 (UTC)
:you don't know if somebody is an adult just by them telling you they are because people lie and it's harder or impossible to know that there telling the truth on the internet , these people could be 100 yr.old's , 5 yr.old's,etc.--[[User:Monster2821|Monster2821]] ([[User talk:Monster2821|Talk]]) 04:22, October 17, 2010 (UTC)
it was just a suggestion, calm down.
I also believe we should all recieve warnings.
All of us over reacted, and Auror, I apologize greatly. --[[User:BobNewbie|BobNewbie]] ([[User talk:BobNewbie|talk]])([[User blog:BobNewbie|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. --[[User:BobNewbie|BobNewbie]] ([[User talk:BobNewbie|talk]])([[User blog:BobNewbie|blog]]) 12:52, October 17, 2010 (UTC)
:As far as I'm concerned, I don't think we need to write warnings on talk pages for this, since everyone involved is already well aware of what has happened and most seem apologetic. In other words, let this message serve as the official warning for all. From what I can tell, this all stems from a couple issues, and I hate to pick on Auror here, but they are related to a lot of it.
:So, to Auror specifically - I appreciate trying to help the wiki, but be mindful of what you say and how your actions come across to other users. What you may see as taking a firm stance, others may see as being mean or uncooperative. I will not hesitate to warn or block for what I see as negative behavior on your part.
:With this comes a few ground rules for Auror (and for everyone). First, treat others with respect '''always'''. If you're going to do something which may cause a scene, please explain your actions and leave the door open to discussion. Do not edit war; if you make an edit and someone reverts it, instead of reverting it again, start a discussion on the talk page and work it out. Be mindful that many people here don't speak English as a first language - they have just as much of a right to edit here as a native English speaker. Instead of deleting content by them, edit it to correct grammar mistakes, and work with the users to improve their English.
:To everyone else: taking action against other users is never OK. Always contact an administrator if another user violates policy or is in any way uncooperative - if necessary, administrators can act as mediators in a conflict. Do not take matters into your own hands, because that will only make matters worse.
:Let's move on from this. -- '''[[User:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">LostInRiverview</font>]]<sup> [[User_talk:LostInRiverview|<font color="navy">talk</font>]] · [[User_blog:LostInRiverview|<font color="navy">blog</font>]]</sup>''' 17:48, October 17, 2010 (UTC)
|}
{{clr}}
== TSW on other sites ==
{{resolved/mini|res| The Sims Wiki is being represented on other websites such as Facebook and Twitter. Further discussion of issues related to this should be started in a new section, or on the [[The Sims Wiki talk:Community Portal|Community Portal]]. 06:24, November 12, 2010 (UTC)}}
! colspan="2" style="text-align:center;" |Click here to expand original discussion
|-
|
''Moved from the community portal talk''
===Discussion===
Should we register TSW on other sites? I'm thinking facebook and twitter and all that. I'm gonna list some pros and cons:
:
;Pros
*Might attract more visitors.
*Can help relay info without people visiting the site.
:
;Cons
*Shared password.
*Abuse/vandalism.
*Inter-admin drama for not gaining access to accounts.
;Suggested sites
*Google Groups (for sharing passwords between admins)
*Twitter
*Facebook
*Youtube
:
;Comments
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. '''[[User:Duskey|Duskey]]'''<small>([[User_talk:Duskey|<span style="color:green;">talk</span>]])</small> 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. '''[[User:Duskey|Duskey]]'''<small>([[User_talk:Duskey|<span style="color:green;">talk</span>]])</small> 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. '''[[User:Duskey|Duskey]]'''<small>([[User_talk:Duskey|<span style="color:green;">talk</span>]])</small> 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. '''[[User:Duskey|Duskey]]'''<small>([[User_talk:Duskey|<span style="color:green;">talk</span>]])</small> 14:54, July 29, 2010 (UTC)
I added 'suggested sites' above. '''[[User:Duskey|Duskey]]'''<small>([[User_talk:Duskey|<span style="color:green;">talk</span>]])</small> 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. '''[[User:Duskey|Duskey]]'''<small>([[User_talk:Duskey|<span style="color:green;">talk</span>]])</small> 08:18, August 6, 2010 (UTC)
:Twitter page looks good. I have been posting to [http://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/The-Sims-Wiki/127567777276896 Facebook] with Wikia's Facebook Connect. --[[User:A_morris|a_morris]] <small>([[User_talk:A_morris|talk]])</small> 19:05, August 8, 2010 (UTC)
::Cool. I'm not a FB user, so I can't really help there. How do you like Google Groups for password sharing among admins with access to the stuff? Unless anyone has any crazy objections I'd like to fire off the Twitter page in the coming days. '''[[User:Duskey|Duskey]]'''<small>([[User_talk:Duskey|<span style="color:green;">talk</span>]])</small> 19:27, August 8, 2010 (UTC)
:::Moved from the community portal discussion. '''[[User:Duskey|Duskey]]'''<small>([[User_talk:Duskey|<span style="color:green;">talk</span>]])</small> 14:35, August 14, 2010 (UTC)
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. '''[[User:Duskey|Duskey]]'''<small>([[User_talk:Duskey|<span style="color:green;">talk</span>]])</small> 15:50, August 14, 2010 (UTC)
:I've created a Facebook page for The Sims Wiki and linked (export Facebook posts to Twitter) it to our Twitter account. I am the admin of the page but I can add others through Facebook friends or email. --[[User:A_morris|a_morris]] <small>([[User_talk:A_morris|talk]])</small> 18:46, August 14, 2010 (UTC)
::A toddler informed me that there's now two FB pages on our Wiki, is this intentional? What do you mean you linked it to our twitter? Does this mean twitter posts will show up on facebook? '''[[User:Duskey|Duskey]]'''<small>([[User_talk:Duskey|<span style="color:green;">talk</span>]])</small> 20:19, August 14, 2010 (UTC)
:::The page that was linked here before was not "owned" by anyone and therefore could not be posted to or administered in anyway. The second one is administered by me so far. I'm not positive if twitter posts will show up on facebook. It is either facebook -> twitter or facebook <-> twitter. --[[User:A_morris|a_morris]] <small>([[User_talk:A_morris|talk]])</small> 21:30, August 14, 2010 (UTC)
:::Clarifying: The link only goes facebook to twitter. The Twitter app on facebook can make posts only to personal profiles not pages but other applications can. --[[User:A_morris|a_morris]] <small>([[User_talk:A_morris|talk]])</small> 17:14, August 15, 2010 (UTC)
::::I've made [[Template:Top area]]. I figure we'll use this on the main page when we decide to launch these sites. '''[[User:Duskey|Duskey]]'''<small>([[User_talk:Duskey|<span style="color:green;">talk</span>]])</small> 16:11, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
:::::I found an application called [http://www.facebook.com/apps/application.php?id=290374557459&ref=ts Smart Twitter for Pages] and linked our twitter account to update our facebook fan page (hopefully). Let me know if there are any problems. I am setting the app to allow retweets and @replies. It can also allow @mentions and #hashtags, lmk if I should set those as well. --[[User:A_morris|a_morris]] <small>([[User_talk:A_morris|talk]])</small> 22:14, October 5, 2010 (UTC)
::::::Just posted on facebook and it showed up on twitter, so it's definitely working that way. --[[User:A_morris|a_morris]] <small>([[User_talk:A_morris|talk]])</small> 22:34, October 5, 2010 (UTC)
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. '''[[User:Duskey|Duskey]]'''<small>([[User_talk:Duskey|<span style="color:green;">talk</span>]])</small> 22:16, August 28, 2010 (UTC)
|}
{{clr}}
== Admin Portal talk page archives ==
{{resolved/mini|res| Archives are stored for this page using collapsible navboxes, with stored sections having a {{t|resolved/mini}} template briefly outlining the section and its outcome. 06:22, November 12, 2010 (UTC)}}
! colspan="2" style="text-align:center;" |Click here to expand original discussion
|-
|
As you may notice, a few resolved discussions have been archived. I encourage you to go to the archive and check it out, since I think it may be a feature we want to duplicate, especially for discussion pages that have multiple archive pages. The system on the Admin Portal talk archive hides all discussions except those which the reader wants to see, allowing a person to easily find the discussion they're looking for without tons of needless scrolling. Further, I kept the checkmark/x mark 'resolved' statement out of the hidden table, since it gives a brief discussion of the outcome, and is useful in that regard. Any improvements to the layout are appreciated. I'll soon write up a brief description of how to add more items to that archive, but first...
I have been operating off an unspoken rule, made by me. I think, though, that it's worth discussing. I have been operating under the following "rules"; 1) a discussion will be ruled as "resolved" (and thus given a green check or red 'x') after it is apparent that no more discussion will be introduced; it's up to the individual admin in that case to determine if more discussion is still a significant possibility. After the discussion is considered resolved, I have kept it on this page for a few more weeks, so that readers (specifically admins) can take note of the decision and possibly re-open the discussion if needed. After that period, I have archived the contents. I think this system is ideal, as it gives plenty of time for review and discussion before the information is moved.
What are your thoughts, either on the "storage system" in the archive, or the rule of thumb regarding when discussions are resolved and when they're moved to the archives? -- [[User:LostInRiverview|Patrick (LostInRiverview)]]<small> ([[User_talk:LostInRiverview|talk]])([[User_blog:LostInRiverview|blog]])([[Special:Random|random page]])</small> 22:39, September 11, 2010 (UTC)
:A thing to notice is that the discussions were not archived in a typical order, but rather were archived based on the date that they were resolved. I think this is idea since often discussions can stretch over many months, or may be brought up and resolved relatively quickly. In this way, newly resolved discussions can be added chronologically in-order to the archive on an individual basis, rather than en masse. Thoughts on that as well? -- [[User:LostInRiverview|Patrick (LostInRiverview)]]<small> ([[User_talk:LostInRiverview|talk]])([[User_blog:LostInRiverview|blog]])([[Special:Random|random page]])</small> 22:52, September 11, 2010 (UTC)
::I think it's a wonderful system, but I do think we should call it something other than an archive and maybe call it... resolved issues or something. To me an archive is still for when a talk page gets too large, then you move old discussions there. In my opinion the "resolved issues" can still have the archive header, but should have a different nav window to link to them, perhaps similar to the "Important discussions elsewhere" on the CP (Community Portal) talk page. '''--[[User:Duskey|<span style="color:#344790;">Duskey</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Duskey|<span style="color:green;">talk</span>]]</sup>''' 10:02, September 12, 2010 (UTC)
:::Moved archive to [[The Sims Wiki talk:Admin Portal/resolved discussions]]. As for the navigation, I'll leave it alone for now since I'm not entirely sure what you're going for. -- [[User:LostInRiverview|Patrick (LostInRiverview)]]<small> ([[User_talk:LostInRiverview|talk]])([[User_blog:LostInRiverview|blog]])([[Special:Random|random page]])</small> 15:07, September 12, 2010 (UTC)
:Check [[Template:Resolved/mini]]
{{Resolved/mini|res|It has been resolved 'cause stuff. '''--[[User:Duskey|<span style="color:#344790;">Duskey</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Duskey|<span style="color:green;">talk</span>]]</sup>''' 13:14, September 13, 2010 (UTC)}}
{{Resolved/mini|nlr|It is no longer relevant 'cause stuff. '''--[[User:Duskey|<span style="color:#344790;">Duskey</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Duskey|<span style="color:green;">talk</span>]]</sup>''' 13:14, September 13, 2010 (UTC)}}
:Can that be used for the resolved stuff? I've seen something similar on Wikipedia. '''--[[User:Duskey|<span style="color:#344790;">Duskey</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Duskey|<span style="color:green;">talk</span>]]</sup>''' 15:00, September 14, 2010 (UTC)
::Updated the template to be smaller. '''--[[User:Duskey|<span style="color:#344790;">Duskey</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Duskey|<span style="color:green;">talk</span>]]</sup>''' 01:16, September 20, 2010 (UTC)
:::The template is now being used on this page and on the resolved discussions page. I may craft a quick template that allows us to quickly set up a hidden discussion, specifically for the admin portal resolved discussions page. Otherwise, copying over the code isn't too daunting, just a bit annoying. -- [[User:LostInRiverview|Patrick (LostInRiverview)]]<small> ([[User_talk:LostInRiverview|talk]])([[User_blog:LostInRiverview|blog]])([[Special:Random|random page]])</small> 21:28, September 20, 2010 (UTC)
::::How so? I suggest we test this system out here. In the future it might be an idea to adopt the system on Comm Portal and Dev Portal. '''--[[User:Duskey|<span style="color:#344790;">Duskey</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Duskey|<span style="color:green;">talk</span>]]</sup>''' 01:22, September 21, 2010 (UTC)
===New 'Resolved Discussions' layout===
The wikitable feature used on [[The Sims Wiki talk:Admin Portal/resolved discussions|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:
! colspan="2" style="text-align:center;" |Click here to expand original discussion
|-
|The text that is being hidden goes here
|}
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. -- '''[[User:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">LostInRiverview</font>]]<sup> [[User_talk:LostInRiverview|<font color="navy">talk</font>]] · [[User_blog:LostInRiverview|<font color="navy">blog</font>]]</sup>''' 23:19, October 21, 2010 (UTC)
|}
{{clr}}
== User with multiple accounts ==
{{resolved/mini|nlr| Discussion of the issue has stopped. To re-start discussion, start a new section on the Admin Portal talk page. 06:26, November 12, 2010 (UTC)}}
! colspan="2" style="text-align:center;" |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 [[User:God of the sims|God of the sims]]. I requested a [[Help:CheckUser|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.
The following 3 usernames have edited from the same IP address.
*{{userlinks|92.12.97.63}}
*{{userlinks|Vampiregod}}
*{{userlinks|~katana}}
*{{userlinks|God of the sims}}
The following 6 usernames have also edited from the same IP address. The date after the links is the user creation date ([http://sims.wikia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&offset=20100915185400&showall=0&type=newusers&hide_patrol_log=1&month=&year= see log])
*{{userlinks|92.11.39.32}}
*{{Userlinks|Mavgay}} 16:38, September 15, 2010
*{{Userlinks|Tortylok}} 16:42, September 15, 2010
*{{Userlinks|Kayleyzomik}} 16:45, September 15, 2010
*{{Userlinks|Ffiontomas}} 16:49, September 15, 2010
*{{Userlinks|Yes me man}} 16:54, September 15, 2010
*{{Userlinks|God of the sims}}
All these usernames and IPs have voted for the same featured content within a very narrow time period. Check [http://sims.wikia.com/index.php?title=The_Sims_Wiki:Featured_Article/Voting&action=history Featured article voting history] and [http://sims.wikia.com/index.php?title=The_Sims_Wiki:Featured_Media/Voting&action=history Featured media voting history]. Note that times are UTC+2.
;Sarah Crittur
*17:11, September 10, 2010 92.12.97.63
*17:17, September 10, 2010 Vampiregod
*22:12, September 10, 2010 92.12.97.63
*22:16, September 10, 2010 ~katana (Replacing IP vote above)
*12:04, September 11, 2010 God of the sims
*18:56, September 15, 2010 Yes me man
*19:30, September 15, 2010 Ffiontomas
;Cho Sunwhun
*19:24, September 10, 2010 Vampiregod
*12:11, September 11, 2010 God of the sims
*18:36, September 15, 2010 92.11.39.32
*18:40, September 15, 2010 Mavgay
*18:44, September 15, 2010 Tortylok
*18:47, September 15, 2010 Kayleyzomik
*18:52, September 15, 2010 Ffiontomas
*18:58, September 15, 2010 Yes me man
These two are the most apparent ones, but if you check the contribs of the users and the history of the two voting pages, you'll clearly see the similarities in votes, the narrow timestamps (few minutes apart) and that the edits sometimes edit the other accounts' timestamps.
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. '''--[[User:Duskey|<span style="color:#344790;">Duskey</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Duskey|<span style="color:green;">talk</span>]]</sup>''' 09:09, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
:With the ''possible'' exception of "God of the sims", it does appear that they are likely to be the same person. Since "God of the sims" mentioned sharing a computer, I'm open to the possibility that two people are involved and only one is using multiple accounts, but don't ask me to put any money on it. [[User:Dharden|Dharden]] ([[User_talk:Dharden|talk]]) 16:01, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
::The obvious first step would be to remove the duplicate votes, except (possibly) for the vote cast by god of the sims. It seems fairly likely to me, based on the way the votes fell, that GotS is likely not being honest about what is really going on - I hate to make that conclusion, but the evidence in the case makes it appear likely. However, getting GotS' side of the story in this matter may not be a bad idea, before we end up issuing blocks. In any case, keep an eye on the behavior of the multiple IPs and users, and be prepared to issue sock bans if needed. -- '''[[User:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">LostInRiverview</font>]]<sup> [[User_talk:LostInRiverview|<font color="navy">talk</font>]] · [[User_blog:LostInRiverview|<font color="navy">blog</font>]]</sup>''' 18:16, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
:::I'm going to bump this because there hasn't been any discussion in a few days. Let's get a resolution here, please, especially since the Featured Article is set to switch over in two days. -- '''[[User:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">LostInRiverview</font>]]<sup> [[User_talk:LostInRiverview|<font color="navy">talk</font>]] · [[User_blog:LostInRiverview|<font color="navy">blog</font>]]</sup>''' 21:09, September 28, 2010 (UTC)
::::I notice that a user {{Userlinks|Ffionthomas}} has appeared, with only one contribution other than votes, and that a userpage edit. I seriously doubt that the similarity to "Ffiontomas" is coincidental. I smell socks. [[User:Dharden|Dharden]] ([[User_talk:Dharden|talk]]) 06:14, October 8, 2010 (UTC)
:::: I also notice there have been several votes from IP [[Special:Contributions/92.2.108.201|92.2.108.201]] withing a couple of days, but no other contributions. [[User:Dharden|Dharden]] ([[User_talk:Dharden|talk]]) 06:20, October 8, 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. '''--[[User:Duskey|<span style="color:#344790;">Duskey</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Duskey|<span style="color:green;">talk</span>]]</sup>''' 11:15, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
|}
{{clr}}
== User:The Sims 3 Late Night ==
{{Resolved/mini|nlr| No policy regarding this issue has been passed, and discussion has long since ended for it. - 15:17, February 8, 2011 (UTC) }}
! colspan="2" style="text-align:center;" |Click here to expand original discussion
|-
|
What's the policy on someone using a game title as a username? [[User:Dharden|Dharden]] ([[User_talk:Dharden|talk]]) 22:46, October 21, 2010 (UTC)
:There is none. If you are going to block it, however, I would suggest that you allow the associated IP to create a new account with a different name. IF you do anything, make sure the user is aware of what you've done. -- '''[[User:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">LostInRiverview</font>]]<sup> [[User_talk:LostInRiverview|<font color="navy">talk</font>]] · [[User_blog:LostInRiverview|<font color="navy">blog</font>]]</sup>''' 23:06, October 21, 2010 (UTC)
::I've drafted a proposed policy on the Policy talk page regarding this issue. -- '''[[User:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">LostInRiverview</font>]]<sup> [[User_talk:LostInRiverview|<font color="navy">talk</font>]] · [[User_blog:LostInRiverview|<font color="navy">blog</font>]]</sup>''' 06:19, November 12, 2010 (UTC)
|}
{{clr}}
== User:Vampire1901 ==
{{Resolved/mini|nlr| No longer relevant -- 19:25, September 30, 2011 (UTC)}}
! colspan="2" style="text-align:center;" |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.--[[User:Monster2821|Monster2821]] ([[User talk:Monster2821|Talk]]) 20:11, October 28, 2010 (UTC)
:Also there's more proof on irc just ask the people on there.--[[User:Monster2821|Monster2821]] ([[User talk:Monster2821|Talk]]) 20:14, 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. [[User:GEORGIEGIBBONS|<font color="navy">GEORGIE</font><font color="red">GIBBONS</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:GEORGIEGIBBONS|talk]]</sup> <sub>[[Special:Contributions/GEORGIEGIBBONS|contributions]] </sub> 20:19, October 28, 2010 (UTC)
:Now that [[User:Simcontributor|Simcontributor]] is blocked permanently, shouldn't the block on [[User:Vampire1901|Vampire1901]] be changed to permanant? [[User:GEORGIEGIBBONS|<font color="navy">GEORGIE</font><font color="red">GIBBONS</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:GEORGIEGIBBONS|talk]]</sup> <sub>[[Special:Contributions/GEORGIEGIBBONS|contributions]] </sub> 14:14, November 12, 2010 (UTC)
I see that [[Special:Contributions/Vampire1901|Vampire1901]] is back. Since they weren't given a permanent block, should we give them one last chance? [[User:Dharden|Dharden]] ([[User_talk:Dharden|talk]]) 16:22, November 22, 2010 (UTC)
|}
{{clr}}
== [[User:Makii4]] ==
{{Resolved/mini|nlr| No longer an issue. 23:58, July 15, 2011 (UTC)}}
! colspan="2" style="text-align:center;" |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? [[User:Dharden|Dharden]] ([[User_talk:Dharden|talk]]) 03:40, November 26, 2010 (UTC)
:Looking at [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Editing restrictions|Wikipedia:Editing restrictions]], I would suggest putting Makii4 on an upload restriction. Maybe something like this: <code>Makii4 is prohibited from uploading any image that is not properly licensed or used to illustrate the topic of the article. If Makii4 continues to upload images with no license or purpose, or creates article solely to use an image they uploaded they will be banned for X hours/days.</code> --[[User:A_morris|a_morris]] <small>([[User_talk:A_morris|talk]])</small> 22:31, November 26, 2010 (UTC)
|}
{{clr}}
== Top 10 ==
{{Resolved/mini|res| The Top Ten feature has been activated and is available for use. 23:58, July 15, 2011 (UTC)}}
! colspan="2" style="text-align:center;" |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 [[The Sims Wiki talk:Community Portal#Top 10|here]]). If you have any objections to this, please say so before I make contact. -- '''[[User:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">LostInRiverview</font>]]<sup> [[User_talk:LostInRiverview|<font color="navy">talk</font>]] · [[User_blog:LostInRiverview|<font color="navy">blog</font>]]</sup>''' 18:38, December 16, 2010 (UTC)
;Update
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. -- '''[[User:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">LostInRiverview</font>]]<sup> [[User_talk:LostInRiverview|<font color="navy">talk</font>]] · [[User_blog:LostInRiverview|<font color="navy">blog</font>]]</sup>''' 08:40, December 19, 2010 (UTC)
|}
{{clr}}
[[Category:Archive for The Sims Wiki talk:Admin Portal|{{PAGENAME}}]]
Latest revision as of 17:49, 9 August 2016
Resolved Discussions
Discussions located on this page are generally considered to be resolved. Please do not make edits to or remove the discussions on this page. If there is need to re-open a discussion, please begin a new section on the main talk page and provide a link to any resolved discussions on this page.
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)
My only concern for placing warnings in the history is that they may be just a little hard to find. Might I suggest something like adding a wiki-link in the summary, perhaps to Template:Warning, and also perhaps to The Sims Wiki:Policy page to cite a specific rule-breakage. For example:
Since it's in the history, it will automatically place the username and date, so a signature isn't needed. This could be considered a "badge of shame" but I don't think so; the edit history isn't something everyone sees, and the user isn't forced to look at the warning every time they visit their page, plus it makes it known when a warning was given, who gave it, and under what circumstances. I would suggest bolding the word 'warning' but, alas, that doesn't work in edit summaries. Another alternative would be to place 'warning' in all caps, but that might be too "loud." Failing all these options, perhaps it might be a decent idea to keep a Warned Log, which would record who has been warned, when they were warned, and for what they were warned. I know that I've been hesitant towards this (some vandals might see it as a "badge of honor" - we're stuck talking about badges, apparently), but if it could be done in a way where it's not readily visible to most people (like restricted special pages), or in a place not likely to be visited, it might be a good way to keep track of these things. Of course, any warning log that is generally visible would need to have full sysop protections. -- Patrick (LostInRiverview) (talk)(blog)(random page) 14:44, August 23, 2010 (UTC)
I think the whole point of having a warning before a block is that warnings are temporary and they're meant to be "forgotten", in my opinion it's enough that we have a block log, if we remove the 1 week rule there's no need to keep track of warnings. An admin spotting a warnable/bannable affair just has to check the recent history of the user's talk page to check if a warning was given recently. If yes, then a ban should probably be issued. Adding a simple 'warning' in the edit summary is enough in my opinion, you can always quickly search the window in your browser if you're in doubt. Adding the reason however might be a good idea.
So in short: Dislike warning logging, dislike "decorating" warning edit summaries, dislike 1 week non-removal rule of warnings. Duskey(talk) 16:49, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
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)
I found this http://sims.wikia.com/index.php?title=Pleasant_family&diff=155672&oldid=155669 and reverted it of course. I did not warn or ban since the user has made no other contributions, I'll keep an eye on it of course. I can remember removing the same spam from another article some days ago from another IP. I asked some of the VSTF staff if we could watch for these keywords somehow, without any luck. Just a quick reminder: Keep a lookout for spam like this. Duskey(talk) 14:25, July 22, 2010 (UTC)
No, I have found the same text in thousands (not literally) pages today. I didn't check if it was from the same person.- JEA13[iTalk] 19:20, July 22, 2010 (UTC)
I say we block if it happens twice from the same IP, though I'm almost sure it's just some proxy servers from all over the world. The one in my example is from Indonesia. Duskey(talk) 00:32, July 23, 2010 (UTC)
I think the best we can do is use google to search for 'digimon' with the 'site:http://sims.wikia.com' paremeter. It only shows this page atm, but it appears the spanish sims wiki has had the same problems. Duskey(talk) 07:20, July 31, 2010 (UTC)
I blocked 118.137.68.185 for a month. The IP's seem to be from 118.137.x.x range, but we sadly also have legitimate IP users posting from that range so we cannot ban them all. Duskey(talk) 07:26, August 1, 2010 (UTC)
Previously blocked 118.137.20.48 as well. Duskey(talk) 07:53, August 1, 2010 (UTC)
Moved article to admin portal talk. Duskey(talk) 14:55, August 5, 2010 (UTC)
If we see more of this Digimon spam from the 118.137.x.x range, I suggest we block IP users from that range for a month, as a test. Normal contributors can from that range will still be able to register and then contribute as normal, but IP's from that range will not be able to edit. What do you think? Duskey(talk) 14:55, August 5, 2010 (UTC)
I don't think vandalism even of this type or magnitude warrants potentially blocking several people who have done nothing wrong, just because they coincidentally have an IP address that falls within a certain range. If this continues, though, it might be best to send a message to someone on the VSTF, since maybe they have an idea that will stop it, without possibly barring innocent users. Plus, to be honest, while this sort of thing is a nuisance, it doesn't do any real or permanent harm, since it's revertible and those users can be blocked. -- Patrick (LostInRiverview) (talk)(blog)(random page) 15:48, August 5, 2010 (UTC)
Just for the record: The range block of IP users were the advice given by folk from VSTF. Duskey(talk) 20:36, August 8, 2010 (UTC)
Since I just caught another, I'm doing some investigation into this: Duskey(talk) 08:29, August 22, 2010 (UTC)
Thoughts, questions, ideas? As mentioned above I've asked some people from VSTF and they suggested the range block. Duskey(talk) 08:29, August 22, 2010 (UTC)
I did a whois on all of them [1]. They all return the same information, they're all from Indonesia and owned by some ISP called Firstmedia there. This means that either the spammer is their customer or he's using their server as a proxy. The company doesn't have a "Report abuse" button or anything like that so they probably won't react in any way if we contact them. Duskey(talk) 14:41, August 23, 2010 (UTC)
Though I was hesitant, I say that a range block may be in order. My only concern, however, is a question of numbers; if we block all IPs starting with 118.137, how many people could that potentially block from the wiki?-- Patrick (LostInRiverview) (talk)(blog)(random page) 14:47, August 23, 2010 (UTC)
I'm not an expert, but my guess would be everyone from Indonesia using Firstmedia and who isn't registered. Unfortunately there is no way we can search for IP users, but I have seen legit edits from that range. We could contact wikia to see if they have an alternate solution and maybe request an estimate of the amount of traffic from that range. If we implement the range block I imagine we make a news post and a site notice about it. Think of unregistered editing as a luxury, it's not something users can demand. Duskey(talk) 03:09, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
That might be a good option... if I recall, you can set a separate site notice for IP users... you could make a message there that says basically "if you can't edit, your ip may be blocked - please register in order to edit articles." Then it would be important that the block is set so that the blocked ips aren't prohibited from creating a new username. Registered users are altogether easier to handle, vandalism-wise. -- Patrick (LostInRiverview) (talk)(blog)(random page) 03:19, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
I don't think there's any reason to add a message for all IP users. As I wrote earlier we'll do a blog news post, a quick sitenotice and then adding a note to the block message people get. It's at MediaWiki:Blockedtext. I'll send an email to Wikia today asking for help/solutions. Duskey(talk) 16:53, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
I forgot to add: I suggest we do the range block as a test at first in a 3 month period and then see if we catch any more of them. Duskey(talk) 17:00, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
Mail to Wikia sent. Duskey(talk) 10:40, August 25, 2010 (UTC)
Another one caught. I added it to the tables above. Duskey(talk) 11:33, August 25, 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 noticed an auto-block triggering after their block, which means they have another account. Bleeh pointed out that here [7] they sign their name with Iesha. Bleeh remembered that name as a former vandal and sure enough User:Iesha Parsons, blocked for 3 days on July 13, 2010. If you see their user pages [8][9] the writing is almost identical. Iesha's contributions also reveal that they've been editing RIPBrandibroke's talk page as if it was their own [10]. I'm fully convinced that it is the same person, I'm just looking for some backup before blocking it as well. As long the RIPBrandibroke's block is up, they will only be able to edit from the other account if they switch IP's somehow so we don't need to rush this decision, but I'd sleep better at night knowing all their sockpuppets were gone. Duskey(talk) 16:41, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
I see Monster blocked that account as well. Duskey(talk) 10:01, August 25, 2010 (UTC)
File:Red x cross uncheck bad.svgNo longer relevant: Deleted player story was re-added by the administrator that deleted it. -- 22:49, September 11, 2010 (UTC)
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)
File:Icon yes check v.svgResolved: {{Warning}} template wording has been edited, and a new {{tempblock}} template has been created. Issue regarding non-removal policy for warnings was already addressed and resolved here.-- 20:58, September 20, 2010 (UTC)
Click here to expand original discussion
I'd like to make a few changes to the way we handle warnings, and specifically the {{warning}} and {{warning2}} templates. Presently, we really only have two types of warnings; one for unconstructive edits, and another for negative behavior. I think it would be better to get rid of Warning2 and combine both into the Warning template, with the addition of another parameter. So, entering a warning would look something like this:
{{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)
It sounds good to me, thumbs up. I also support the idea of scrapping the 1 week rule of not deleting the warning. As long as people issueing the warning put 'warning' in the edit summary, we can always spot it if need be. Duskey(talk) 22:53, August 10, 2010 (UTC)
I would suggest something like:
This is a warning
We are warning you because of {{{reason}}}.
This is a friendly reminder to refrain from making unconstructive edits to The Sims Wiki. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox, or if you need help please either read the policy or ask an admin. Please do not remove this warning for 1 week, unless an admin says differently. If you continue to vandalize you may be blocked.Thank you. — {{{1}}}
This is a final warning
We are warning you because of {{{reason}}}.
This is a friendly reminder to refrain from making unconstructive edits to The Sims Wiki. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox, or if you need help please either read the policy or ask an admin. Please do not remove this warning for 1 week, unless an admin says differently. If you continue to vandalize you may be blocked.Thank you. — {{{1}}}
You have been temporarily blocked
We are temporarily blocking you because of {{{1}}}.
You have ignored a warning or grossly violated The Sims Wiki policies. For this reason you have been temporarily blocked. Any similar action immidiately after this block expires may result in a permanent block. You may remove this message once you have read and understood it.Your temporary block expires on {{{2}}}. — {{{3}}}
I mean just the colors, I haven't changed the wording of the final warning. Duskey(talk) 14:19, August 23, 2010 (UTC)
One suggestion; on the temp block template, include in the 2nd parameter a spot for time... so instead of it saying something like August 27, 2010, it will give the exact time when a block expires (August 27, 2010 at 12:37:00) -- 00:37, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
I can easily do that, but it'll be harder for North Americans since the times listed on the block list is in local time and we should output time in UTC. Duskey(talk) 16:10, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
Here's a suggestion for a catch-all rewording of the warning template:
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.
The reason field should be used to explain what sort of incident it was. I'm not sure I see much point in having multiple warning templates or even a final warning template if we keep the wording flexible enough. Personally I've always notified a person if they've done something borderline. If it happens again, I warn them and the third time it's a block. This is all situational of course. Duskey(talk) 20:02, August 29, 2010 (UTC)
I updated the wording in both warning and tempblock. If you ask me I'd say they're complete now. --Duskeytalk 02:43, September 6, 2010 (UTC)
File:Icon yes check v.svgResolved:Simcontributor has received a month-long block, which will expire on October 19. Issues regarding this user should be discussed in a new section. 06:57, October 2, 2010 (UTC)
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)
Done. - JEA13[iTalk] 07:49, September 19, 2010 (UTC)
done?,it was only a month.--Monster2821 (talk) 12:50, September 19, 2010 (UTC)
Huh? I meant I blocked him. - JEA13[iTalk] 12:59, September 19, 2010 (UTC)
i mean't to say why did you block him for only a month?--Monster2821 (talk) 13:45, September 19, 2010 (UTC)
Because the things he did were worth of a single month ban, that's all. :P - 13:51, September 19, 2010 (UTC)
I think a permanent and even a month is a bit harsh. I'd love for us to discuss this. Can we state what the person has done recently? Please add to the list below. As for their prior staff it only culminated in a 1 day block after a warning. I think it's too soon for a permanent block.
I haven't noticed a lot of bad behavior on their part, but I take it that there are some problems. I'm hesitant to issue bans, but I would say that this user should receive a final warning, telling them that any violation of policies may warrant their immediate and permanent removal, due to receiving warnings and disciplinary actions in the past. Tell them that they can contribute as much as they want, so long as the contributions are positive and constructive to the wiki, and that they observe the policies and guidelines that exist here. Allow this user a chance to redeem their behavior; if the choose not to do so, then follow through with longer blocks or a perm. ban. -- Patrick (LostInRiverview) (talk)(blog)(random page) 22:17, September 19, 2010 (UTC)
Now the user is socking. Requesting permanant block of Simcontributor and his sock, Should42563. I don't find it coincidential at all that Should is his father as they both seem very similar. GEORGIEGIBBONS (talk) 17:55, September 20, 2010 (UTC)
Yeah it is a sock I think, she should talks just like Simcontributor. ---Guilherme Guerreiro 18:01, September 20, 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)
Should42563 created a page for Simcontributor as well as having a similar writing style and the fact that Should appeared not long after Simcontributor was given a month block. GEORGIEGIBBONS (talk) 18:09, September 20, 2010 (UTC)
The problem I have with this is that essentially everyone here has broken down into hysterics. Realize that currently, Simcontributor is under a permanent block (since yesterday) and Should42563 is under a 3-day block for removing content from talk pages. So, the idea that we need to act right away should stop right now. We have plenty of time to discuss this rationally and decide what we should do; should both Simcontributor and Should42563 be tied together as socks and permanently banned or not? This is a decision that the administrators need to make, not the regular users. -- Patrick (LostInRiverview) (talk)(blog)(random page) 18:17, September 20, 2010 (UTC)
I can go along with a one-month block plus a final warning. I was under the impression that he was leaving anyway. and will confess that I hoped he would not be hit by the door as he did. Still, if he comes back, behaves himself, and contributes constructively, so much the better. If he messes up again, give him the boot. As for Should42563, I'm not prepared to say that this user is a sock, but I'm also not prepared to say they aren't. Dharden (talk) 19:04, September 20, 2010 (UTC)
I support changing the block for Simcontributor to one month along with a final warning. If Simcontributor steps out of line again, I would support a permanent block. As for Should42563 we can't be certain it's a sockpuppet since it's a different IP (or they would be blocked too). A 3-day block seems harsh if their only unconstructive edits are creating a main namespace article and removing talk page content. Let's keep 3-day ban and I'll leave a message on both talk pages. Remember to assume good faith, these two users should be dealt with seperately. --Duskeytalk 20:29, 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)
To wrap this up, here is where we stand as of now: Simcontributor is blocked for about a month (expires October 19th) and Should42563 has received a 3-day block. Simcontributor is currently on final notice, meaning if they violate policies once their block ends, they will receive a permanent ban. We are choosing not to pursue the issue of any alleged sockpuppets without further evidence, meaning that these two users will be treated as separate users.
A note to users - though this place is a good location for alerting administrators as to goings-on on the wiki, it's not the right place for users to debate whether a user should receive a block, especially a permanent one. Please allow the administrators time to discuss and come to a conclusion without being bombarded with messages here and on talk pages. Also, please don't throw out suggestions for permanent blocks - if the admins feel a user should be blocked permanently, we will do so.
This issue is resolved, pending further actions from the users involved. If an issue arises, it should be discussed in a new topic section. -- Patrick (LostInRiverview) (talk)(blog)(random page) 20:53, September 20, 2010 (UTC)
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? -- LostInRiverviewtalk · blog 06:44, October 2, 2010 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. --Duskeytalk 11:15, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
File:Icon yes check v.svgResolved: Don't move files to replace another file, as it doesn't work. 23:10, October 21, 2010 (UTC)
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)
I've noticed some other issues with the listusers page, mainly that it indicates that no one has edited at all since August. I've already tried contacting Wikia regarding the page, but I've received no response. I'm assuming that they'll get around to fixing it after the new skin has officially taken over (and after they work the kinks out of it). --LostInRiverviewtalk · blog 03:39, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, also I'm not listed as a rolback user there. ---Guilherme Guerreiro 09:00, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
Duskey is also not listed as a bureaucrat. ---Guilherme Guerreiro 11:24, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
File:Icon yes check v.svgResolved: Participants in the flame war understand that continued attacks on others will result in permanent bans or other severe punishments. Users also understand that edit warring will not be tolerated. Further discussion of this issue should occur in a new section. 15:43, October 29, 2010 (UTC)
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.
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? -- LostInRiverviewtalk · blog 21:12, October 16, 2010 (UTC)
I think auror should be banned forever because she has been negative to me on irc and tsw and to the people mentioned above.
If anyone disagrees tell me.--Monster2821 (Talk) 21:51, October 16, 2010 (UTC)
I don't think a user should be banned just because they're a little abrasive. However, if there was a consensus that her behavior has been consistently detrimental, then there would be grounds to do something. -- LostInRiverviewtalk · blog 22:04, October 16, 2010 (UTC)
Any pointers on where to look to get up to speed on all of this? Perhaps a quick recap with links would be sweet. I can't really give my opinion on something I know nothing about. --Duskeytalk 22:19, October 16, 2010 (UTC)
I suggest edit wars are handled as normal: Warn, block, block longer, block even longer etc. as always. This goes for both participants. If someone disagrees with another users edit, it's a good idea to contact that user on their talk page and see if you can reach some sort of agreement there. If not, take it to the talk page of the article and see what other people think. I don't suggest any further action unless new violations of policies and normal conduct is made. --Duskeytalk 22:55, October 16, 2010 (UTC)
This is really about more than edit warring - if it were a simple case of an edit war, I wouldn't be bothered to even bring it up. This is about the conduct of members of this community. I think we need to decide what we are willing to accept from our members, whether the actions made by Auror can be allowed to stand, or whether we are going to allow open hostility towards Auror by the other members. We don't have any real policies that dictate what to do here. -- LostInRiverviewtalk · blog 23:04, October 16, 2010 (UTC)
I don't know what the specific issue was but from what I saw, all three of them participated in incivility/personal attacks, but only Auror Andrachome (talk · contribs · editcount · block · modify rights · logs · block log) and Guilherme Guerreiro (talk · contribs · editcount · block · modify rights · logs · block log) were involved in an edit war, correct?, and the three-revert rule would apply to them. A brief block may be necessary for all involved (already done.) Once consensus is reached on the content issue (if not already) and they continue to edit-war, a stricter revert rule may be put in place for the users and topic(s) involved or a longer block. --a_morris (talk) 17:27, October 17, 2010 (UTC)
I've blocked Auror for 3 days due to [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)
Consequently I've also blocked Guilherme for 1 day since he has recieved a warning for this earlier. --Duskeytalk 21:11, October 17, 2010 (UTC)
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.
I think Auror must receive only a warn about her behaviour, I think she was a bit mean to many users on this wiki and she doesn't want to change her mind and reactions on here. Thanks --- Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 22:07, October 16, 2010 (UTC)
I agree that RodrigoX, GG, BobNewbie, and myself should all just get warnings and no perma-bans for any of us since all of us are hard-working users who just want to help out and add new information. [Ѧüя◎ґ]
I don't want to sound like a victim, but I didn't do much to receive a warning; I just commented on you guys wars. Sure that I disliked Auror's bbehaviour, but I didn't actually entered in the war, I just commented, which IMO isn't that harsh to get a warning... --- » Яσdяigσ X[̲̅т̲̅α̲̅l̲̅k̲̅][̲̅b̲̅l̲̅σ̲̅g̲̅] « 11:50, October 17, 2010 (UTC)
Yes you're right Auror, me and you should receive warns, Rodrigo X not and BobNewbie maybe a friendly one (Note: I don't see you as an enemy and I hope we could repair our relationship)---Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 10:32, October 17, 2010 (UTC)
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)
you don't know if somebody is an adult just by them telling you they are because people lie and it's harder or impossible to know that there telling the truth on the internet , these people could be 100 yr.old's , 5 yr.old's,etc.--Monster2821 (Talk) 04:22, October 17, 2010 (UTC)
it was just a suggestion, calm down.
I also believe we should all recieve warnings.
All of us over reacted, and Auror, I apologize greatly. --BobNewbie (talk)(blog) 11:45, October 17, 2010 (UTC)
All I actully wanted to do was defend my friend, and those who got hurt by Auror. Rodrigo only commented, he does not really deserve a warning. --BobNewbie (talk)(blog) 12:52, October 17, 2010 (UTC)
As far as I'm concerned, I don't think we need to write warnings on talk pages for this, since everyone involved is already well aware of what has happened and most seem apologetic. In other words, let this message serve as the official warning for all. From what I can tell, this all stems from a couple issues, and I hate to pick on Auror here, but they are related to a lot of it.
So, to Auror specifically - I appreciate trying to help the wiki, but be mindful of what you say and how your actions come across to other users. What you may see as taking a firm stance, others may see as being mean or uncooperative. I will not hesitate to warn or block for what I see as negative behavior on your part.
With this comes a few ground rules for Auror (and for everyone). First, treat others with respect always. If you're going to do something which may cause a scene, please explain your actions and leave the door open to discussion. Do not edit war; if you make an edit and someone reverts it, instead of reverting it again, start a discussion on the talk page and work it out. Be mindful that many people here don't speak English as a first language - they have just as much of a right to edit here as a native English speaker. Instead of deleting content by them, edit it to correct grammar mistakes, and work with the users to improve their English.
To everyone else: taking action against other users is never OK. Always contact an administrator if another user violates policy or is in any way uncooperative - if necessary, administrators can act as mediators in a conflict. Do not take matters into your own hands, because that will only make matters worse.
File:Icon yes check v.svgResolved: The Sims Wiki is being represented on other websites such as Facebook and Twitter. Further discussion of issues related to this should be started in a new section, or on the Community Portal. 06:24, November 12, 2010 (UTC)
Should we register TSW on other sites? I'm thinking facebook and twitter and all that. I'm gonna list some pros and cons:
Pros
Might attract more visitors.
Can help relay info without people visiting the site.
Cons
Shared password.
Abuse/vandalism.
Inter-admin drama for not gaining access to accounts.
Suggested sites
Google Groups (for sharing passwords between admins)
Twitter
Facebook
Youtube
Comments
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)
Twitter page looks good. I have been posting to Facebook with Wikia's Facebook Connect. --a_morris (talk) 19:05, August 8, 2010 (UTC)
Cool. I'm not a FB user, so I can't really help there. How do you like Google Groups for password sharing among admins with access to the stuff? Unless anyone has any crazy objections I'd like to fire off the Twitter page in the coming days. Duskey(talk) 19:27, August 8, 2010 (UTC)
Moved from the community portal discussion. Duskey(talk) 14:35, August 14, 2010 (UTC)
What's the next step? The way I see it we just use Twitter to announce our news posting which go on the main page. Remember to include links directly to the post in Bit.ly format. Facebook should probably contain similar postings, I have no idea how that works though (Facebook that is).
The Google group is only used so all invited admins have the passwords. The Gmail is only used since all these sites (Twitter, Bit.ly etc) required an email to register. It should only be used for affiliation emails. It should not be used as a contact email, we have the wiki for that.
Personally I would hold off announcing all this until we get it on the right tracks, meaning all active 'crats control the google group and we make some userboxes like "I'm following TSW on Twitter" etc. Duskey(talk) 15:50, August 14, 2010 (UTC)
I've created a Facebook page for The Sims Wiki and linked (export Facebook posts to Twitter) it to our Twitter account. I am the admin of the page but I can add others through Facebook friends or email. --a_morris (talk) 18:46, August 14, 2010 (UTC)
A toddler informed me that there's now two FB pages on our Wiki, is this intentional? What do you mean you linked it to our twitter? Does this mean twitter posts will show up on facebook? Duskey(talk) 20:19, August 14, 2010 (UTC)
The page that was linked here before was not "owned" by anyone and therefore could not be posted to or administered in anyway. The second one is administered by me so far. I'm not positive if twitter posts will show up on facebook. It is either facebook -> twitter or facebook <-> twitter. --a_morris (talk) 21:30, August 14, 2010 (UTC)
Clarifying: The link only goes facebook to twitter. The Twitter app on facebook can make posts only to personal profiles not pages but other applications can. --a_morris (talk) 17:14, August 15, 2010 (UTC)
I've made Template:Top area. I figure we'll use this on the main page when we decide to launch these sites. Duskey(talk) 16:11, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
I found an application called Smart Twitter for Pages and linked our twitter account to update our facebook fan page (hopefully). Let me know if there are any problems. I am setting the app to allow retweets and @replies. It can also allow @mentions and #hashtags, lmk if I should set those as well. --a_morris (talk) 22:14, October 5, 2010 (UTC)
Just posted on facebook and it showed up on twitter, so it's definitely working that way. --a_morris (talk) 22:34, October 5, 2010 (UTC)
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)
File:Icon yes check v.svgResolved: Archives are stored for this page using collapsible navboxes, with stored sections having a {{resolved/mini}} template briefly outlining the section and its outcome. 06:22, November 12, 2010 (UTC)
Click here to expand original discussion
As you may notice, a few resolved discussions have been archived. I encourage you to go to the archive and check it out, since I think it may be a feature we want to duplicate, especially for discussion pages that have multiple archive pages. The system on the Admin Portal talk archive hides all discussions except those which the reader wants to see, allowing a person to easily find the discussion they're looking for without tons of needless scrolling. Further, I kept the checkmark/x mark 'resolved' statement out of the hidden table, since it gives a brief discussion of the outcome, and is useful in that regard. Any improvements to the layout are appreciated. I'll soon write up a brief description of how to add more items to that archive, but first...
I have been operating off an unspoken rule, made by me. I think, though, that it's worth discussing. I have been operating under the following "rules"; 1) a discussion will be ruled as "resolved" (and thus given a green check or red 'x') after it is apparent that no more discussion will be introduced; it's up to the individual admin in that case to determine if more discussion is still a significant possibility. After the discussion is considered resolved, I have kept it on this page for a few more weeks, so that readers (specifically admins) can take note of the decision and possibly re-open the discussion if needed. After that period, I have archived the contents. I think this system is ideal, as it gives plenty of time for review and discussion before the information is moved.
What are your thoughts, either on the "storage system" in the archive, or the rule of thumb regarding when discussions are resolved and when they're moved to the archives? -- Patrick (LostInRiverview) (talk)(blog)(random page) 22:39, September 11, 2010 (UTC)
A thing to notice is that the discussions were not archived in a typical order, but rather were archived based on the date that they were resolved. I think this is idea since often discussions can stretch over many months, or may be brought up and resolved relatively quickly. In this way, newly resolved discussions can be added chronologically in-order to the archive on an individual basis, rather than en masse. Thoughts on that as well? -- Patrick (LostInRiverview) (talk)(blog)(random page) 22:52, September 11, 2010 (UTC)
I think it's a wonderful system, but I do think we should call it something other than an archive and maybe call it... resolved issues or something. To me an archive is still for when a talk page gets too large, then you move old discussions there. In my opinion the "resolved issues" can still have the archive header, but should have a different nav window to link to them, perhaps similar to the "Important discussions elsewhere" on the CP (Community Portal) talk page. --Duskeytalk 10:02, September 12, 2010 (UTC)
Can that be used for the resolved stuff? I've seen something similar on Wikipedia. --Duskeytalk 15:00, September 14, 2010 (UTC)
Updated the template to be smaller. --Duskeytalk 01:16, September 20, 2010 (UTC)
The template is now being used on this page and on the resolved discussions page. I may craft a quick template that allows us to quickly set up a hidden discussion, specifically for the admin portal resolved discussions page. Otherwise, copying over the code isn't too daunting, just a bit annoying. -- Patrick (LostInRiverview) (talk)(blog)(random page) 21:28, September 20, 2010 (UTC)
How so? I suggest we test this system out here. In the future it might be an idea to adopt the system on Comm Portal and Dev Portal. --Duskeytalk 01:22, September 21, 2010 (UTC)
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:
Click here to expand original discussion
The text that is being hidden goes here
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. -- LostInRiverviewtalk · blog 23:19, October 21, 2010 (UTC)
File:Red x cross uncheck bad.svgNo longer relevant: Discussion of the issue has stopped. To re-start discussion, start a new section on the Admin Portal talk page. 06:26, November 12, 2010 (UTC)
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.
The following 3 usernames have edited from the same IP address.
22:16, September 10, 2010 ~katana (Replacing IP vote above)
12:04, September 11, 2010 God of the sims
18:56, September 15, 2010 Yes me man
19:30, September 15, 2010 Ffiontomas
Cho Sunwhun
19:24, September 10, 2010 Vampiregod
12:11, September 11, 2010 God of the sims
18:36, September 15, 2010 92.11.39.32
18:40, September 15, 2010 Mavgay
18:44, September 15, 2010 Tortylok
18:47, September 15, 2010 Kayleyzomik
18:52, September 15, 2010 Ffiontomas
18:58, September 15, 2010 Yes me man
These two are the most apparent ones, but if you check the contribs of the users and the history of the two voting pages, you'll clearly see the similarities in votes, the narrow timestamps (few minutes apart) and that the edits sometimes edit the other accounts' timestamps.
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)
With the possible exception of "God of the sims", it does appear that they are likely to be the same person. Since "God of the sims" mentioned sharing a computer, I'm open to the possibility that two people are involved and only one is using multiple accounts, but don't ask me to put any money on it. Dharden (talk) 16:01, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
The obvious first step would be to remove the duplicate votes, except (possibly) for the vote cast by god of the sims. It seems fairly likely to me, based on the way the votes fell, that GotS is likely not being honest about what is really going on - I hate to make that conclusion, but the evidence in the case makes it appear likely. However, getting GotS' side of the story in this matter may not be a bad idea, before we end up issuing blocks. In any case, keep an eye on the behavior of the multiple IPs and users, and be prepared to issue sock bans if needed. -- LostInRiverviewtalk · blog 18:16, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to bump this because there hasn't been any discussion in a few days. Let's get a resolution here, please, especially since the Featured Article is set to switch over in two days. -- LostInRiverviewtalk · blog 21:09, September 28, 2010 (UTC)
I notice that a user Ffionthomas (talk · contribs · editcount · block · modify rights · logs · block log) has appeared, with only one contribution other than votes, and that a userpage edit. I seriously doubt that the similarity to "Ffiontomas" is coincidental. I smell socks. Dharden (talk) 06:14, October 8, 2010 (UTC)
I also notice there have been several votes from IP 92.2.108.201 withing a couple of days, but no other contributions. Dharden (talk) 06:20, October 8, 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)
File:Red x cross uncheck bad.svgNo longer relevant: No policy regarding this issue has been passed, and discussion has long since ended for it. - 15:17, February 8, 2011 (UTC)
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)
There is none. If you are going to block it, however, I would suggest that you allow the associated IP to create a new account with a different name. IF you do anything, make sure the user is aware of what you've done. -- LostInRiverviewtalk · blog 23:06, October 21, 2010 (UTC)
I've drafted a proposed policy on the Policy talk page regarding this issue. -- LostInRiverviewtalk · blog 06:19, November 12, 2010 (UTC)
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)
Also there's more proof on irc just ask the people on there.--Monster2821 (Talk) 20:14, 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)
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)
Looking at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions, I would suggest putting Makii4 on an upload restriction. Maybe something like this: Makii4 is prohibited from uploading any image that is not properly licensed or used to illustrate the topic of the article. If Makii4 continues to upload images with no license or purpose, or creates article solely to use an image they uploaded they will be banned for X hours/days. --a_morris (talk) 22:31, November 26, 2010 (UTC)
File:Icon yes check v.svgResolved: The Top Ten feature has been activated and is available for use. 23:58, July 15, 2011 (UTC)
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. -- LostInRiverviewtalk · blog 18:38, December 16, 2010 (UTC)
Update
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. -- LostInRiverviewtalk · blog 08:40, December 19, 2010 (UTC)
