The Sims Wiki talk:Admin Portal/resolved discussions 2013

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.

---

• The Sims Wiki talk:Admin Portal
• 2010 resolved discussions
• 2011 resolved discussions
• 2012 resolved discussions
• 2013 resolved discussions
• 2014 resolved discussions
• 2015 resolved discussions
• 2016 resolved discussions

Activity Update: December 2012

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

Update

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

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

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

	December 2011	December 2012	Percent change
Registered & Active Total	266	257	-3.4%
Registered & Active, Content only	174	174	0%
Editors to Content, >5	54	62	+13%
Editors to Content, >100	8	7	-12.5%
Total Content Articles	9,456	8,637	-8.7%
Total Edits to Content	3,886	3,862	-0.6%

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

Rosebud22

Can anyone order a checkuser on Rosebud22? For some reason the 22 suffix leads me to believe Rosebud22 is somehow related to the likes of Creeper22 or Cademn11, especially as Rosebud22 created an article of questionable relevance to the Sims Series, if there is any to be had at all. MILK FOR THE UNYUUFEX, FLAT CHEST FOR THE CUTENESS THRONE, SKULLS FOR THE SKULL PROBES (user talk:Mathetesalexandrou) 00:52, January 9, 2013 (UTC)

Blocked for removing content from pages, I will write a Special:Contact shortly (unless you're willing to...?) ―ฬђ ^talk 01:08, January 9, 2013 (UTC)

Seems like RRabbit came in and helped us out there. Case resolved. MILK FOR THE UNYUUFEX, FLAT CHEST FOR THE CUTENESS THRONE, SKULLS FOR THE SKULL PROBES (user talk:Mathetesalexandrou) 03:25, January 9, 2013 (UTC)

Anon user 149.147.23.16

What should we do with 149.147.23.16 (talk · contribs · editcount · block · modify rights · logs · block log)? This user's contributions have been creating a needless page (see here), creating a poor quality fanon Fanon:Carl Moody, and vandalizing a user's userpage (see here). The userpage edit used the summary "(anon editing userpage (possible vandalism, AGF))", which may look familiar. Also, in the userpage vandalism, the anon claimed to be 12, which means that they cannot create an account and claim their fanon. I'm minded to delete the fanon and issue a block, but would like a second opinion. Dharden (talk) 15:32, January 15, 2013 (UTC)

I deleted the fanon on the grounds that the anon can't claim it, and issued a warning for the vandalism. Dharden (talk) 15:47, January 15, 2013 (UTC)

I'm inclined to believe that the userpage does belong to the anon although there is no way of actually verifying it (and Wikia won't do a checkuser to compare to an IP), so we can't really be sure of that. I would agree with a block on the basis of the user being underage but as we can't confirm that, I say for now we just keep a watch on the anon and if they act up again then we can just block for vandalism. Lost Labyrinth • (c) • (b) 22:41, January 15, 2013 (UTC)

Works for me. Dharden (talk) 23:16, January 15, 2013 (UTC)

New warning template

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

So, I decided to create a new warning template, which features variable messages depending on the situation. Messages can be broken up into specific classes:

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

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

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

I've tested this template out a little and it appears to be free of bugs. Go ahead and test it out and tell me what you think of it; the template is currently at {{NewWarning}}. -- LostInRiverview ^{talk ~ blog} 05:12, March 17, 2013 (UTC)

Looks good. You may want to consider adding the possible TSW:ER inclusion to one of the file warnings in accordance with the Image and file policy but otherwise I'm in support of this change. Lost Labyrinth • (c) • (b) 11:30, March 17, 2013 (UTC)

I like it. It might be useful to have the types that have levels default to level 1 if no level is given, so there'll be a message if the level is left out. Dharden (talk) 12:56, March 17, 2013 (UTC)

Will {{tempblock}} be redesigned in conjunction with the warning template? The simple design makes it rather to-the-point, I guess. Nikel _{Talk – Vote!} 14:23, March 17, 2013 (UTC)

I think having levels would make things easier, because it will make it easier to show how serious their actions were, as well as the suggested template specifying more clearly what they've done, rather than a template with a brief explaination, I like it. AsherÉire I'm a lonely person, so please talk to me... 14:33, March 17, 2013 (UTC)

@Lost Labyrinth, I can incorporate that into the template, probably as part of the level 2 warning. Do you think I should make reference to ER in all the warning 'classes' or just the File/Image ones?

@Dharden, that's a good idea. I shall implement that shortly.

@Nikel23, I wouldn't be opposed to making changes to Tempblock either. I started with changes to the Warning template because, in my opinion, the template needs a lot more help than Tempblock does. If anything else, we can make the changes to Warning then wait and see how they turn out, then bring forward a change to Tempblock later.

@Everyone, thanks for weighing in so far! Since the reaction to the idea seems pretty positive, I think we might want to start moving towards implementation. Since this new template is a fundamental change to the {{Warning}} template, it might be necessary to inform all admins of the change, if and when we choose to change it. This is because the parameters needed for the template to work will have changed. Since both the current and revised warning templates should be substituted, it might be worth leaving the Warning template as-is for now, while simultaneously starting to use the new warning template. But we could just as well throw out the old warning template and move the new one in without much of a transitional period. Thoughts? -- LostInRiverview ^{talk ~ blog} 22:35, March 17, 2013 (UTC)

I'd say ER should be fine only in the file classes as it's mainly for good faith users who are doing things wrong, anyone warned for vandalism can just be dealt with straight away. Oh and as a minor note I checked earlier to ensure that all current warning templates are substituted so that we don't have to cleanup a load of code later on. Lost Labyrinth • (c) • (b) 22:40, March 17, 2013 (UTC)

The changes suggested above have been implemented. A slight issue on the matter of substitution, by the way. Presently, {{NewWarning}} probably shouldn't be substituted onto a page, as it leaves all the {{#ifeq:}} functions visible in the wiki code, even if the functions themselves aren't being used. The result is a long string of wiki code that might confuse many users. If there is a way to strip the template of this code when it transcludes over, that would be best. Generally speaking templates for user talk pages should always be set to substitute, but with this template set up as it is presently, doing that would not be practical. -- LostInRiverview ^{talk ~ blog} 23:06, March 17, 2013 (UTC)

I was referring to the substitution of what currently sits in {{Warning}}. Fortunately they all were properly substituted anyway but leaving it as just {{Warning|whatever}} would cause numerous issues later on. I can see the technical limitations with the new template, I was just executing a pre-emptive measure on the current, unmodified template to save hassle later. Lost Labyrinth • (c) • (b) 23:17, March 17, 2013 (UTC)

Good thing there aren't too many pages which use Warning templates that aren't substituted, so it's not gonna be a big deal of work to substituted.

I see the template leaves its codes when substituted too. I have an idea though. What if use a template for this template, that stores the contents/comments/"Please note...", while the rest of the code (like the box) stays in this NewWarning template? So when NewWarning is substituted, it will not leave the entire ifeqs behind. We've had many infoboxes that implement this method. Take a look at {{NeighborhoodInfobox}} for example, that uses {{GetGameIcon}} template in the game1 parameter. This is to let the infobox gets an icon from GetGameIcon without having to include the entire options in the code, if the infobox is substituted. Nikel _{Talk – Vote!} 09:18, March 18, 2013 (UTC)

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

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

(Reset indent) The template should be fixed now. -- LostInRiverview ^{talk ~ blog} 15:25, March 21, 2013 (UTC)

It seems to be. Dharden (talk) 15:32, March 21, 2013 (UTC)

Mid-April 2013 Activity Update

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

	January 2013	February 2013	March 2013	April 2013
Registered & Active Total	248 (-3%)	225 (-9%)	227 (0%)	115 (-31%)
Registered & Active, Content only	167 (-4%)	151 (-9%)	149 (-1%)	108 (-27%)
Editors to Content, >5	72 (16%)	61 (-15%)	62 (1%)	47 (-24%)
Editors to Content, >100	8 (14%)	7 (-12%)	11 (57%)	5 (-54%)
Total Content Articles	8,774 (1%)	8,915 (1%)	9,078 (1%)	9,037 (0%)
Total Edits to Content	3,662 (-5%)	3,897 (6%)	4,650 (19%)	2,420 (-47%)

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

April 2013 Activity Update

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

	January 2013	February 2013	March 2013	April 2013
Registered & Active Total	248 (-3%)	225 (-9%)	227 (0%)	254 (11%)
Registered & Active, Content only	167 (-4%)	151 (-9%)	149 (-1%)	175 (17%)
Editors to Content, >5	72 (16%)	61 (-15%)	62 (1%)	74 (19%)
Editors to Content, >100	8 (14%)	7 (-12%)	11 (57%)	10 (-9%)
Total Content Articles	8,774 (1%)	8,915 (1%)	9,078 (1%)	9,102 (0%)
Total Edits to Content	3,662 (-5%)	3,897 (6%)	4,650 (19%)	4,681 (0%)
WAM Score (last day of month)	98.63	98.81 (Increase 0.18)	98.44 ( 0.37)	98.49 (Increase 0.05)
WAM Ranking (cross-Wikia, last day of month)	61	51 (Increase 10)	65 ( 14)	69 ( 4)

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

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

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

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

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

	April 2012	April 2013	Percent change
Registered & Active Total	254	254	0%
Registered & Active, Content only	186	175	-5.9%
Editors to Content, >5	74	74	0%
Editors to Content, >100	7	10	42.9%
Total Content Articles	10,482	9,102	-13.2%
Total Edits to Content	4,169	4,681	12.3%

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

Should Profanity filter block violating users?

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

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

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

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

Any thoughts? -- LostInRiverview ^{talk ~ blog} 04:54, May 1, 2013 (UTC)

Interesting thought, I think a block would be reasonable. One day seems fair to me. If we do this we'll need to keep an eye on the block log however as the filter has been known to get false positives occasionally. ―ฬђ ^talk 09:34, May 1, 2013 (UTC)

Seeing that profanity seems to not reflect good-faith edit at all, giving a block may be legitimate. I don't know, however, if they deserve a one-day block for one (unless it's more) profane edit, because it's happened quite often, and we don't seem to always block whenever there's one. If warning doesn't help, maybe at least we give them one-hour block or longer, and the duration increases if they persist doing so. Is it possible? Nikel _{Talk – Vote!} 11:35, May 1, 2013 (UTC)

On a technical perspective, the abusefilter would automatically block a user permanently if we used the automated block setting, which is why we only really use this for prolific long-term abusers and mass spammers. Either way an admin would have to manually remove a block after 1 day, if we went the automated route, or check Special:AbuseLog for offenders.

I can see the argument for doing this though I feel the idea of a filter is to ease administrative workload. At the moment I'm in the middle with this on technical grounds, leaning towards support. Lost Labyrinth • (c) • (b) 11:19, May 2, 2013 (UTC)

Wow, I was not aware that abusefilter blocks were automatically permanent; I can't say I really support perma-blocking on the first offense. Also, I think having it set so that an admin needs to check the logs constantly just puts more work on them, which does run contrary to Lost Lab's statement that the abusefilter is meant to lighten the load. So, funny as it may sound, I no longer support my idea. -- LostInRiverview ^{talk ~ blog} 13:42, May 2, 2013 (UTC)

May 2013 Activity Update

I haven't forgotten about this! Here are your stats this month

	February 2013	March 2013	April 2013	May 2013
Registered & Active Total	225 (-9%)	227 (0%)	260 (14%)	258 (0%)
Registered & Active, Content only	151 (-9%)	149 (-1%)	178 (19%)	168 (-5%)
Editors to Content, >5	61 (-15%)	62 (1%)	75 (20%)	66 (-12%)
Editors to Content, >100	7 (-12%)	11 (57%)	10 (-9%)	7 (-30%)
Total Content Articles	8,915 (1%)	9,078 (1%)	9,101 (0%)	9,238 (1%)
Total Edits to Content	3,897 (6%)	4,650 (19%)	4,831 (3%)	3,724 (-22%)
WAM Score (last day of month)	98.81 (Increase 0.18)	98.44 ( 0.37)	98.49 (Increase 0.05)	98.66 (Increase 0.17)
WAM Ranking (cross-Wikia, last day of month)	51 (Increase 10)	65 ( 14)	69 ( 4)	57 (Increase 12)

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

	May 2012	May 2013	Percent change
Registered & Active Total	213	258	21.1%
Registered & Active, Content only	131	168	28.2%
Editors to Content, >5	47	66	40.4%
Editors to Content, >100	7	7	No change
Total Content Articles	10,689	9,238	-15.7%
Total Edits to Content	4,858	3,724	-23.3%

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

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

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

User:Alaisia911

I can't say that this can be an evidence or not, but this user's one and only edit is rather suspicious to point out her age. I'm not sure if it's real. Should we keep an eye on her or something? I can't tell it from her other user pages either. Nikel _{Talk – Vote!} 04:40, June 12, 2013 (UTC)

It seems fairly authentic to me, unless it's like a weird form of Inception or something. Anyhoo I've gone and blocked based on this, as well as the fact she uploaded a fanon image out of the blue. Lost Labyrinth • (c) • (b) 21:46, June 18, 2013 (UTC)

User:ILoveBeyonceForeverAndEver

I know bringing this up directly contradicts the fact that I unblocked her earlier today and applied TSW:ER restrictions on her but after she was banned for harassing another user in Chat and creating this blog aimed to attack other users, I honestly can't see any hope in this user improving their behavior and I'm thinking a permanent block is the only real way forward. I'd like to know what everybody else thinks about this before, and if, we go this route. Lost Labyrinth • (c) • (b) 21:42, June 18, 2013 (UTC)

Well, the deleted blog post mentioned "never returning", so let's see if she means it. If she comes back after the block and misbehaves again, give her the boot. Dharden (talk) 22:08, June 18, 2013 (UTC)

I gave her an indefinite block and gave her a chance to clean up her act. She failed catastrophically at that, so I think it's time to say goodbye. -- LostInRiverview ^{talk ~ blog} 14:48, June 19, 2013 (UTC)

I don't have any real hope of her improving, either. We don't have to do it now, bit if it's a question of whether to perma-block her now or later, we might as well do it now. Dharden (talk) 18:16, June 19, 2013 (UTC)

To put this another way, given her record, is there any reason not to perma-block her now, other than the thought that she might be serious about not coming back? Dharden (talk) 12:49, June 21, 2013 (UTC)

Anonymous vandal

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

Recently, the number of anonymous edits increase. Some anons now insert false information, while some are just plain vandalism. I know I can't tell whether they're the same culprit or the old culprit who's changing target or maybe completely different people or what. Sometimes anons even made rightful edits, so I suppose it's not a pattern. Maybe I'm just a little more paranoid recently. All I can say is keep an eye on anonymous edits as they can easily slip past and their edits remain unnoticed. Nikel _{Talk – Vote!} 07:39, June 22, 2013 (UTC)

I must say I have my suspicions on these vandals and have been keeping a very close eye on these edits they have been making. I've also been patrolling edits made in Files, which is where most of the vandalism has been taking place. I have also taken note of a few of these IP's, just for reference. Beds ^{(parlare - da leggere)} 15:57, July 30, 2013 (UTC)

"About us" section/page

I've been thinking about creating a section on our administrators page, or else creating a new page, dedicated to giving little biographies about each of the admins and b'crats on the wiki. We could link to this page for the benefit of our Facebook or Twitter followers, for instance, as well as on the wiki. The page would contain sections on each member of "staff" with general information, which could include:

• First name (if they're comfortable saying it)
• General location (including their time zone)
• How they first got into The Sims
• What other games they play
• What kinds of "special jobs", if any, they engage in while editing The Sims Wiki (e.g. perhaps an admin has a knack for categorization, or likes to make templates, etc)

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

Thoughts? -- LostInRiverview ^{talk ~ blog} 02:36, July 10, 2013 (UTC)

That's kind of interesting! Although, personally, I wouldn't put my first name (which by the way is not the one on my other account-name, which was actually composed of two of my last names/surnames, but I have given away these already, so giving my first name seems unlikely to me) nor any social networks. But I think it might be interesting in the sense that is helpful to other users in order to contact us, know the admin a little bit better, know in what each admin can help more in depth and feel comfortable about talking and asking for help to us, because, after all, we all have been newbies too - "How they first got into The Sims"! --RoseGui^{✿ (talk)} 06:19, July 10, 2013 (UTC)

I guess that's not a bad idea. It could be some sort of quick introduction or get-to-know to the admins. Maybe as long as personal information doesn't need to be involved. Nikel _{Talk – Vote!} 06:40, July 11, 2013 (UTC)

I reckon it's a good idea, too. However, I think that each person should choose how much information they want to reveal about themselves, so we don't pressure anyone into doing anything. :) ~ Waikikamukow (Anyone wanna chat?) 03:02, July 13, 2013 (UTC)

This would be quite good, AFAIK not many wikis do this, so perhaps it could start a trend or something? I don't know... As long as the admins are okay with some details of their lives being shared on the wiki. Beds ^{(parlare - da leggere)} 11:14, July 26, 2013 (UTC)

June 2013 Activity Update

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

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

	May 2013	June 2013
Registered & Active Total	258	261 (Increase 1%)
Registered & Active, Content only	168	190 (Increase 13%)
Editors to Content, >5	66	78 (Increase 18%)
Editors to Content, >100	7	10 (Increase 42%)
Total Content Articles	9,238	9,485 (Increase 2%)
Total Edits to Content	3,724	4,815 (Increase 29%)
WAM Score (last day of month)	98.66	98.95 (Increase 0.39)
WAM Ranking (cross-Wikia, last day of month)	57	42 (Increase 15)

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

User:TheSimInvasioner and User:TheBlackAces

According to TheSimInvasioner's userpage, his old account was TheBlackAces, and he made another one instead of renaming it. However, I'm uncertain if they're the same person. He could be lying. If he is, what should we do to TheBlackAces? Nikel _{Talk – Vote!} 03:33, July 17, 2013 (UTC)

A CheckUser would be worthless here given the data only goes back to 3 months ago and TheBlackAces made their last edit in February. The only thing we can really do is assume good faith that TheBlackAces has switched over to TheSimInvasioner and block the former as a security measure. Lost Labyrinth • (c) • (b) 09:41, July 17, 2013 (UTC)

Yes, block, but don't blank, and leave email enabled just in case. Dharden (talk) 12:03, July 17, 2013 (UTC)

OK, I have indefinitely blocked TheBlackAces, but did not check any of the boxes. Dharden (talk) 12:15, July 17, 2013 (UTC)

User:Raving-ben and User:Hump-hump-ben

If you look closely, both Raving-ben (talk · contribs · editcount · block · modify rights · logs · block log) and Hump-hump-ben (talk · contribs · editcount · block · modify rights · logs · block log) have identical names, and their language is similar too, especially with the annoying "me nd ma mates" and "ay/aw, ken?" This is more serious than being underage, for sockpuppetry and having already been permanently banned before. Nikel _{Talk – Vote!} 10:28, July 20, 2013 (UTC)

The former was almost 2 years ago. CheckUser records only go back to 3 months ago so we can only act on behavioural evidence. That said, their behaviour does look strikingly similar as well as the username combination. Given that neither of the users have actually done anything useful, I wouldn't mind giving Hump the permanent boot. Lost Labyrinth • (c) • (b) 11:04, July 20, 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes, some users return after several months or years gone. I think he just forgot his old username or forgot he was blocked, so he made another account. Nikel _{Talk – Vote!} 12:34, July 20, 2013 (UTC)

Seeing as the behavioural evidence is there with no objections, I've gone and issued a permanent block to Hump's account. Lost Labyrinth • (c) • (b) 23:52, July 20, 2013 (UTC)

User:Cubistic.mage

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

At this stage it's probably too early to consider issuing a permanent block despite my lack of faith that we're going to see any improvements here. TSW:ER might be the best solution if we want to give the user a chance to clean their act up but I'd like to hear what others think about this before we do anything. Lost Labyrinth • (c) • (b) 11:28, July 20, 2013 (UTC)

Okay, so, I've just given him his final warning. One more step out of line and he's gone. If anybody wishes to dispute this or has a better idea then feel free to bring it forward but I'm optimistic we're not going to witness any improvement. Lost Labyrinth • (c) • (b) 12:00, July 20, 2013 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly, this user was quick to ignore his final warning/chance for redemption. A permanent block has been issued. Lost Labyrinth • (c) • (b) 12:06, July 20, 2013 (UTC)

What should we do about the IP? Dharden (talk) 12:14, July 20, 2013 (UTC)

Well that lasts pretty quick. And I only left for an hour. The IP is blocked automatically if the user is blocked, isn't it? Nikel _{Talk – Vote!} 12:21, July 20, 2013 (UTC)

The IP should be on autoblock for now. That only lasts 1 day so I'd suggest keeping an eye on it. If this guy acts up again, we can ban the IP. Lost Labyrinth • (c) • (b) 12:27, July 20, 2013 (UTC)

He acted up with the IP shortly after his autoblock expired. I've banned the IP for 1 month. The address is apparently static but I'd watch the 75.118 range closely as the DHCP records have been completely wrong in the past... Lost Labyrinth • (c) • (b) 23:24, July 21, 2013 (UTC)

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

User:MezTV

Except for one post to an article talk page, MezTV's MezTV (talk · contribs · editcount · block · modify rights · logs · block log) contributions have been limited to posting her Let's Play videos, and occasionally adding them to the related videos list. The videos I have sampled are not licensed, and are not used on any articles. This user appears to be using the wiki as her personal video stash. I don't think we have any policy against this other than policies on licensing and on unused media. My inclination is to remove the videos, but I'd like to hear what other admins think before taking action. Dharden (talk) 22:06, July 23, 2013 (UTC)

If they've just been listed here and aren't used anywhere (even in her own userspace) then it's safe to remove them and notify the user. This could have been prevented if Wikia didn't create file pages for embedded videos as if they were user uploads. There is a discussion going on about this issue but it's slow taking off. Lost Labyrinth • (c) • (b) 10:00, July 24, 2013 (UTC)

The videos have been removed, and I have left a message on the user's talk page. Dharden (talk) 14:45, July 24, 2013 (UTC)

I am beginning to wonder if this user actually reads her talk page. Her response to a polite "please don't do this again" was to do it again. Dharden (talk) 16:51, July 26, 2013 (UTC)

And, she's done it yet again. I'm beginning to think a block may be in order, just to get her attention. Dharden (talk) 06:00, August 10, 2013 (UTC)

Since she's not continuously active, we can consider that when she's back again. Last time she was active was 4 days ago. Nikel _{Talk – Vote!} 06:04, August 10, 2013 (UTC)

Recoloring the admin name highlights

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

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

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

Thoughts? -- LostInRiverview ^{talk ~ blog} 05:29, July 26, 2013 (UTC)

Initially having their colours separated was solely for the purposes of identification. Logically thinking however, the only time that bureaucrats are really needed over any other administrator is for a user rights adjustment which doesn't happen as often as one may think, so I'm in support of this. Green bears a close resemblance to the series so I'm okay with that.

In all honesty, I'd actually also be in favour of removing the highlights that are in place for Wikia's global user rights (staff, VSTF etc.) as they're updated on Wikia's end very frequently and it would be too much of a burden to update, not to mention we hardly ever see them here. I'd still like for the bots to keep their highlight as despite all the current bots having the word "bot" incorporated into their username somehow, you never know when somebody will create one with a creative or "different" name that could easily be confused with a normal user. That and to avoid confusion with any other user. Lost Labyrinth • (c) • (b) 10:12, July 26, 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the colour change; it could easily be implemented and I don't really see a real reason as to why admins names are red and 'crats are in green. I also agree with lostlab's suggestion of removing the highlighted Wikia staff and VSTF users. Beds ^{(parlare - da leggere)} 11:21, July 26, 2013 (UTC)

I feel this is a better idea, because it could seem to a new user that they are two different types of users, where the only difference is the modification of user rights. I also feel that it would be better purely because userpages have the "Admin" tag on them, regardless of whether they are actually admins or bureaucrats, so why have different coloured names as identification whereas the actual pages don't (aside from the addition on the actual page itself, not the section with Birthday, gender etc.), so I feel this would clear up any confusion and dominance produced by a simple difference in colours. As for the removal of Wikia Staff and VSTF, I can safely say their removal won't be noticed. AsherÉire 'Sup? 12:48, July 26, 2013 (UTC)

I'm feeling indifferent, although I actually agree with the main point being crats shouldn't differ from admins. I'm comfortable with the current condition, but having this change isn't bad. Nikel _{Talk – Vote!} 15:50, July 27, 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I like the different colours for the two usergroups. Although the features are basically the same, they still are two different positions. I don't think that the different colours would make anyone believe that bureaucrats are "above" admins or anything, but instead just to properly distinguish the groups. So, I don't support having the two colours be the same. I could support just changing the colours so they're more similar to each other or something (like dark red vs. plain red or something, idk) though. --Bleeh^{(talk) (blog)} 19:03, July 27, 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, Bleeh, but I have to disagree with what you said about people thinking that bureaucrats are above admins! When I first arrived, I did think that bureaucrats were above admins, partly from the name colours, and partly from what I read somewhere (I can't exactly recall where). Now I know that they aren't really that different from each other, but at the start there I definitely thought that bureaucrats were considered way more experienced and trusted.

Anyways, I'd support a colour change, and I like Bleeh's idea of the same colour, just one darker than the other or something like that! I also support the removal of the VSTF and Wikia Staff colours. ~ Waikikamukow (Anyone wanna chat?) 11:29, July 28, 2013 (UTC)

Also indifferent, sharing the opinion with Nikel. MILK FOR THE UNYUUFEX, FLAT CHEST FOR THE CUTENESS THRONE, SKULLS FOR THE SKULL PROBES (user talk:Mathetesalexandrou) 04:35, July 29, 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

Current Bureaucrat

Proposed Administrator

Thoughts? -- LostInRiverview ^{talk ~ blog} 05:42, July 29, 2013 (UTC)

<edit> Also, the removal of colors for Staff, VSTF, etc seems to have support, so those changes can probably be implemented immediately. -- LostInRiverview ^{talk ~ blog} 05:43, July 29, 2013 (UTC)

This could work, I feel that the community could easily adjust to the colour change quite quickly. On a more personal note, I am a big fan of the proposed colour for Administrator names. Beds ^{(parlare - da leggere)} 15:09, July 29, 2013 (UTC)

I think that will work. Dharden (talk) 15:07, July 30, 2013 (UTC)

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

174.50.126.43

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

This IP's edit to The Sims: Makin' Magic removed the ratings, and attempted to add creatur = Fairy, Witch, Vampire in their place. I'm willing to consider the claim Makin' Magic adds those life states a well-intentioned misunderstanding, but this is part of a pattern of removing valid information from infoboxes and/or adding questionable information to them. I propose that this IP be placed under TSW:ER, and restricted from editing infoboxes in any way. Dharden (talk) 19:49, August 9, 2013 (UTC)

Yeah there's a clear pattern of goodwill here despite the issues. I'd say go ahead with TSW:ER for this. Lost Labyrinth • (c) • (b) 09:48, August 11, 2013 (UTC)

Done. Given their disregard for the unreleased games policy, I also said "if you want to give information about an unreleased game or pack, do it on the talk page." Dharden (talk) 19:43, August 11, 2013 (UTC)

I don't think "The Sims 4: Monster Mash" was meant as spam. I think this user read a months-old humor post at GameInformer and took it seriously. Dharden (talk) 20:58, August 11, 2013 (UTC)

I hadn't been aware of that post but with regards to its existence, it only adds to the user's growing record of adding unreliable information, if anything. Lost Labyrinth • (c) • (b) 21:10, August 11, 2013 (UTC)

Yes. IMO, TSW:ER is this user's last chance. Someone who has good intentions but consistently won't -- or can't -- judge the reliability of what they post has as bad an effect as a vandal who deliberately inserts false information because it's how they get their jollies. Dharden (talk) 21:33, August 11, 2013 (UTC)

July 2013 Activity Update

	April 2013	May 2013	June 2013	July 2013
Registered & Active Total	260 (11%)	258 (-1%)	261 (1%)	301 (15%)
Registered & Active, Content only	178 (17%)	168 (-6%)	190 (13%)	210 (11%)
Editors to Content, >5	75 (19%)	66 (-12%)	78 (18%)	100 (28%)
Editors to Content, >100	10 (-9%)	7 (-30%)	10 (43%)	12 (20%)
Total Content Articles	9,101 (0%)	9,238 (1.5%)	9,485 (2.7%)	9,703 (2.3%)
Total Edits to Content	4,831 (0%)	3,724 (-23%)	4,815 (29%)	5,258 (9%)
WAM Score (last day of month)	98.49 (Increased 0.05)	98.66 (Increased 0.17)	98.95 (Increased 0.29)	98.74 ( 0.21)
WAM Ranking (cross-Wikia, last day of month)	69 ( 4)	57 (Increased 12)	42 (Increased 15)	54 ( 12)

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

	July 2012	July 2013	Percent change
Registered & Active Total	328	301	-8.2%
Registered & Active, Content only	217	210	-3.2%
Editors to Content, >5	89	100	12.4%
Editors to Content, >100	13	12	-7.7%
Total Content Articles	11,268	9,703	-13.9%
Total Edits to Content	5,789	5,258	-9.2%

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

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

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

User:Renzikitten and User:95XxSims FanxX95

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

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

However, I feel that their personal dispute isn't over and I have a feeling that when her block is over, Sims Fan will probably come back and continue to argue with Renzikitten. I don't really know what to do, and that is why I'm asking on advice for this issue. Beds ^{(parlare - da leggere)} 21:57, August 10, 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that 95XxSims FanxX95 (talk · contribs · editcount · block · modify rights · logs · block log) was the one who instigated this, seemingly out of nowhere besides an apparent off-wiki personal conflict, though I don't know the backstory of how it started. What happens off-wiki stays off-wiki; for now, I'd say keep a watchful eye on this user and their interactions with others, particularly Renzikitten (talk · contribs · editcount · block · modify rights · logs · block log), and if they persist and show no signs of doing anything useful here, then we can consider a more long-term solution. Lost Labyrinth • (c) • (b) 23:34, August 10, 2013 (UTC)

The Sims 3/cheats

Since this article is apparently under attack, I have semi-protected it. Dharden (talk) 11:57, August 24, 2013 (UTC)

The edit history is nothing more than vandalism and reversion. I'm inclined to semi-protect it even longer if we have to. Nikel _{Talk – Vote!} 01:32, August 25, 2013 (UTC)

Well, it's little more than vandalism and reversion. There are a few good edits, even one or two by anons, but the long-term pattern of vandalism is clear. I have no problem with extending semi-protection. Dharden (talk) 02:12, August 25, 2013 (UTC)

Mr.Conductor

Mr.Conductor (talk · contribs · editcount · block · modify rights · logs · block log) hasn't shown any interest in being a constructive user, having gotten banned from chat and blocked in very short order. What should we do if he comes back after his block and does the same things? Also, do you think his userpage is inappropriate, aside from being gibberish? Dharden (talk) 15:13, October 6, 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps we could wait for another or two last chances with extended blocks if he starts to vandalize again after his block expires. As for his userpage, I say we should blank it. Nikel _{Talk – Vote!} 12:19, October 7, 2013 (UTC)

I agree with blanking his userpage, but didn't want to do it unilaterally, especially since he was starting to get on my nerves. Dharden (talk) 12:57, October 7, 2013 (UTC)

Userpage is blanked. Dharden (talk) 13:51, October 7, 2013 (UTC)

Unblocking User:Carman39?

Ten months ago, Carman39 (talk · contribs · editcount · block · modify rights · logs · block log) was blocked as he claimed to be underage. Recently, he left a message on my talk page claiming he's not really underage. He said it was his brother's doing, and now he asked if he could be unblocked. I don't understand why he made the claim 10 months after the incident, while he's been active at Simpsons Fanon wiki. He has been blocked twice before due to his behavior, and if those two blocks were caused by his brother as well, he's got an issue where his brother could interfere at any time and we can't tell who's behind the account. Otherwise, we could put that aside.

There's no other clue to hint his age either, other than the claim. He's been in several wikis, but he never hinted his age. I'm not sure what to decide with this one. Nikel _{Talk – Vote!} 03:54, October 8, 2013 (UTC)

Not to put too fine a point on it, we have an anon who says he is the real Carman39. The Carman39 account has been active recently enough that info on the IP address(es) it uses should still be available to Wikia. So I think a checkuser is in order, to see if it's likely that 86.133.150.73 and Carman39 could be the same person. Also, as noted, even if all that he said is true, we can't be sure that only he has control of the account. Dharden (talk) 12:31, October 8, 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I clearly overlooked that part, Dharden. I jumped to conclusions too soon, I suppose. If checkuser is required, then so be it. Nikel _{Talk – Vote!} 15:53, October 8, 2013 (UTC)

Wikia typically won't do checkusers between a user and a known IP address (because that could confirm the users' IP). Back to the user... he claims that his brother has taken control of his account, thus indicating that he does not have and cannot maintain control over it. That's a serious issue and I think he should remain blocked. -- LostInRiverview ^{talk ~ blog} 16:04, October 8, 2013 (UTC)

I didn't know that. Under the circumstances, "is the anon who he says he is?" seemed a reasonable question. Dharden (talk) 16:50, October 8, 2013 (UTC)

We haven't made a conclusion yet, but I feel like we'be been running in circles... How do we know if the anon and the user are the same person? What will we do if they are the same person? For what reason should we unblock the user? Should we just trust the anon's words regarding the user's age in case they're the same person? Nikel _{Talk – Vote!} 12:46, October 9, 2013 (UTC)

User:JenniferJLyons, User:DannyREmersons and User:PatrickKBrooks

These accounts have done nothing in this wiki other than spamming external links to each of their userpages. The links are also very similar (in fact, they are pointed to one page called "Green Works Propane") which we can easily conclude that they're sockpuppets. Other important thing is that the three accounts have similar username patterns (*First name**Caps Middle initial**Last name*). A few days back, Nikel had taken a first step in blocking the second account, and notified the first one (which was never responded). A few moments back, I caught the third account posted another similar link to his/her userpage. What I want to discuss is, do we need to block the first account? Because so far they haven't caused any damage to this wiki (other than spamming links). --Frostwalker ^{Talk to me!} 08:04, October 14, 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure the user is just here to spam. They didn't do it just in this wiki, but also in other wikis. I think it's pretty obvious that they're the same person. If their purpose is to spam, I wouldn't hesitate to give JenniferJLyons a permanent block, as they don't seem to have good intention here. Nikel _{Talk – Vote!} 08:38, October 14, 2013 (UTC)

That's the point. If their intentions were only to post spam links, I'd rather end this now before they even have the chance to create another account. --Frostwalker ^{Talk to me!} 14:48, October 14, 2013 (UTC)

JenniferJLyons is permanently blocked. Dharden (talk) 16:03, October 14, 2013 (UTC)

Allow non-admins to issue warnings?

I've been wondering if we should loosen or eliminate our prohibition against non-admins using the {{Warning}} template.

We ask non-admins to participate in anti-spam and anti-vandalism actions, especially our rollbackers (so much so, in fact, that having anti-vandalism history is a qualification for applying). However, we don't give them any tools to correct those behaviors, aside from contacting an administrator or leaving a non-templated warning. Ultimately, I worry that having a restriction against non-admin use of the Warning template serves to discourage non-admins from addressing problem users, when instead we should be encouraging this (in a reasonable sense, of course).

So, I'm proposing that we strip out the rule that only administrators can use the Warning template. I can understand some hesitation to this idea, especially as it concerns possible abuse of the template. However, I'm sure that we will be able to handle any problem users that choose to abuse it.

If nothing else, I strongly support extending the right to issue warnings to Rollbackers at least; if we entrust them with an anti-vandalism tool, why shouldn't we be able to trust them to issue warnings? I want to emphasize that I support extending this right to all users, not just rollbackers. However, I can understand there may be trepidation involved in doing so. -- LostInRiverview ^{talk ~ blog} 20:53, October 25, 2013 (UTC)

I'm okay with this. I've noticed there are different levels of warnings (like vandal1, vandal2 etc.) in the template. I do feel however that the level 4 warning (which essentially says you will be blocked if you do this again) should be restricted to administrators whilst encouraging non-admins to report vandalism should it get to that point and then an admin can act appropriately. This is mainly to discourage users immediately handing out "do this again and you'll be blocked" warnings unnecessarily. We'll probably have to reword some stuff anyway so I'm open to a compromise. Lost Labyrinth • (c) • (b) 23:19, October 25, 2013 (UTC)

The basic low-level warning just mentions edits having been reverted. I think rollbackers should be able to use that. The you-will-be-blocked levels should be administrators-only. I'm not sure about the middle levels that warn that a block is possible, but don't say that it will happen. Dharden (talk) 23:49, October 25, 2013 (UTC)

I'll have no problem with this, since warnings are normally not just a few words that should be passed by administrators only. Allowing every users to be able to use this template seems a fine idea, but I'd suggest that we extend this ability to rollbacker first and see how effective this would be before handing this right to regular users as well. It's just a necessary precaution to avoid of abusing this. --Frostwalker ^{Talk to me!} 00:43, October 26, 2013 (UTC)

I'm a little concerned with the possibility of abuse, but I suppose giving the rollbackers the ability to warn will be worth it. They could use the level 1 warning as the standard usage of the template. It's just that the warning template has the "Notice from the Administrator" header. Perhaps it could be reworded. Nikel _{Talk – Vote!} 07:40, October 27, 2013 (UTC)

I've gone into the template and changed the wording a little bit to fix this problem. I've also mass-messaged all the (active) administrators who haven't entered this discussion yet, so we can come to a conclusion. -- LostInRiverview ^{talk ~ blog} 01:52, October 29, 2013 (UTC)

I'm feeling neutral towards the idea, leaning towards support. I share the same concerns with Nikel23 but I'm sure the rollbackers will be able to handle this. However, personally, I feel that it should only be extended to rollbackers as they have been issued with a tool, trusted by the community. We don't want non-rollbacker users causing havoc by misusing the template. Apart from that, I say I'm leaning towards support. Beds ^{(parlare - da leggere)} 09:38, October 29, 2013 (UTC)

I agree that we should give this ability only to rollbacks and, as Nikel said, they could use the level 1 warning as the standard usage of the template. I think there shouldn't be any problems, but if rollbackers would abuse it, they can also be punished if needed. Life just wouldn't be the same without the Sims! _Talk 12:35, October 29, 2013 (UTC)

Ok, it seems evident that there is support for extending the use of the warning template to rollbackers. It seems most people don't want the rollbackers to use upper-level warnings (i.e. warnings which say that a user will be blocked if they continue), but what about the Level 2 warnings? These are a middle ground between the level 1 warning - which threatens no serious actions, and level 3, which threatens immediate action. The general tone of Level 2 warnings is that, a user is performing bad-faith edits which do not warrant a block right now, but which could if they continue.

I don't personally have an issue with allowing rollbackers to issue these warnings as well. As Beds said, these users have all been approved through an RfR process, so it's clear that they should be able to handle the responsibility of the warning template. As long as they don't explicitly threaten a block - which Level 2 does not - I don't see why they should be stopped from using it, as the situation warrants it.

One final note; I understand the caution towards extending these rights to non-admins, and I can agree with the limitations that have been discussed so far. But I want to stress that I think the risk of abuse of the warnings is pretty low, and easily correctable if it does occur. As it was stated, these users have already been vetted, so it seems like a good time to Assume Good Faith and trust that they'll be able to act responsibly. -- LostInRiverview ^{talk ~ blog} 12:54, October 29, 2013 (UTC)

Per LiR's explanation above, I think I'll agree about assuming good faith and trusting them in using this ability. Besides, there's nothing harm can come from using a simple warning (or notice) template in order to remind users of what their purpose is in here. --Frostwalker ^{Talk to me!} 15:01, October 29, 2013 (UTC)

I for one support allowing non-admins to administer warning. In my tenure as a non-admin, too many times I saw a need for a warning, although I haven't given it out to the offenders as I was not an admin, instead settling for a note reminding the user. MILK FOR THE UNYUUFEX, FLAT CHEST FOR THE CUTENESS THRONE, SKULLS FOR THE SKULL PROBES (user talk:Mathetesalexandrou) 19:43, October 29, 2013 (UTC)

I personally feel similar to most admins here. I think that it should be fair that users who aren't admins can still give warnings to other users although it does have its downsides. Users may take this tool for granted and overuse it on users who've barely done anything wrong. Other that that I think that it would be handy for users to show off their quick eye to spot things. Jason ^{(Talk) {{{1}}}}

I would be in support of allowing rollbackers to issue level 1 and 2 warnings, because they have gone through the RfR process and can be trusted to make good decisions. For regular users though, I'm not quite as willing to give them this ability. Yes, I understand that abuse of the template can be easily reverted and the user dealt with, but I wouldn't want another user to become the victim of a fake warning message and have them not want to return to the wiki ever again. ~ Waikikamukow (Anyone wanna chat?) 21:48, November 3, 2013 (UTC)

From the discussion, it is pretty clear that everyone here is in agreement with allowing rollbackers to issue level 1 and 2 warnings (notifying an administrator if they issue a level 2 warning, of course). As for allowing regular users to do so, it is pretty unclear. Some say we should Assume Good Faith and allow them this opportunity, however, some are standing by the reason of these users may take this opportunity for granted. However, we can bring this topic in another discussion.

To conclude, we will therefore allow rollbackers to issue Level 1 and 2 warnings to those who need. Myself or a bureaucrat will inform the community of this in a blog post. If you have any questions about the new change, feel free to redirect them here. Beds ^{(parlare - da leggere)} 21:34, November 4, 2013 (UTC)

Split warning templates into separate templates

When the {{Warning}} template was overhauled, it included a feature wherein a "standard" warning message and image are displayed if a certain parameter is entered into the <type> parameter. Admittedly, this system is somewhat complicated, since an administrator needs to know the various "magic words" that work within the parameters, or else needs to look them up, in order to use the template. On top of this, if we end up extending the use of Warnings to non-admins (as is being discussed in the section above this one), we'll be expecting these users to use the template, including the difficult <type> parameter.

For all these reasons, I think we would be better served in splitting the warnings up into multiple templates. In my mind, it would work like this:

The central {{Warning}} template would be a meta-template (similar to {{Metabox}} or {{Parthenon}}), in that it would contain a text entry and subject entry parameter - similar, in fact, to the old Warning style. The plain Warning could be placed on a user's talk page, and it would essentially serve as a custom warning if none of the standard warnings apply. As for the standard warnings, we could word them simply, based on the current type parameter keywords; {{Warning vandal}}, {{Warn vandal}} or {{Wrn vandal}} for example. The text for that specific type of warning would be pre-loaded into the new templates, and would have a non-mandatory unlabeled parameter used to identify the severity of the warning: {{Template name|2}} would have the template produce the level 2 wording for that template, for example. We would have a default wording set up for each of these templates if the severity parameter is incorrect or missing, just as we do now.

This change would result in the creation of at least a half-dozen new templates, but each of the templates would be based on the core structure of the main Warning template (since the Warning template itself would be a meta-template). I think this structure would ultimately be simpler and easier to use than the current "one template - many parameters" system we have. Thoughts? -- LostInRiverview ^{talk ~ blog} 05:52, October 26, 2013 (UTC)

I am unsure how to voice my opinion in this, but as long as on how to use it becomes easier than the current one, I'll just stick with LiR's idea. --Frostwalker ^{Talk to me!} 06:10, October 26, 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I don't really see how effective this would be. Why create over a half-dozen new templates for different types of warnings when, I personally feel, that there is only need for one template? Having one template would be easier than having a half-dozen templates - it would be less confusing, in a way. I'm not too sure on this one. Beds ^{(parlare - da leggere)} 19:16, October 30, 2013 (UTC)

Making year-end goals

I know I am not alone in being dissatisfied with the course of community discussions in the forums as of late. Most of the time, major proposals seem to only get discussed by the administrators, or else receive just token input from one or two non-admins. Even matters that largely affect non-admins seem not to catch the interest of non-administrators here on the wiki.

My intent in creating this section is not to complain about the problem, nor is it to postulate on possible solutions. Instead, I want to put forward ideas and I want to set goals. I don't want to pursue community consensus on these things (yet), but I do want to get these ideas out there and get them talked about. I want to be able to work out an idea with the administrators here, polish it, and then present it to the community at-large. And, if the community is apathetic, I want to implement these goals.

Community consensus is a cornerstone of the wiki, but at this point it seems to be holding us back. Discussions about important subjects fail to get off the ground, and that makes even obvious decisions harder to make. At some point, we as admins have to take a proactive approach and implement changes boldly, so long as they don't change long-standing precedents or established rules. I can think of some changes that we've made unilaterally in the past - re-arranging the main page, creating new wiki themes, activating or de-activating features - that were done with little or no community discussion.

Ultimately, we as admins strive to include the community in decisions that affect the community. That's a great thing, to a point. I feel like we've reached a point where we involve the community in matters that they might not care about, with the end result being us locked into a discussion that goes nowhere because no one except admins and a few rare non-admins actually care all that much about the outcome. Maybe it's time to be bolder.

That's why I've started this section. I have brainstormed several goals, things I'd personally like to achieve on the wiki by the end of this year. Some of these have been discussed (though none of them ever got a wide discussion) but for one reason or another fell by the wayside. What I'm looking for is for you, as administrators, to also list your goals as well. I'm sure many of you have things you'd like to do, things you'd like to propose, or changes you'd like to see on the wiki. You might hesitate to bring them up because you're not sure if they're popular or you don't think you'll be able to generate enough community interest in them to get them through a discussion period. This is your chance to do so without having to worry about whether or not more than 3 non-admins will support it.

This section isn't about stating all the things we're going to implement without community discussion. This section is about stating all the things we'd like to implement, that we wish could receive a community discussion and consensus. Ultimately, many of these goals may end up being so minor in impact that it's worth implementing them without a full-blown discussion on the Community Discussions forum. We'll see.

So, what I'm going to do is list out a few of my prospective goals for the rest of the year. I'm not looking for support or opposition, or even feedback. I just want to see what your goals are. And I want all of us to keep looking at this list, and to keep adding goals to this list, even if they've already been added before by someone else! And when we match up goals, we can start working together to implement them, be it through the creation of new categories, pages or templates, or the beginning of a new wiki discussion, or whatever, we will be able to find other administrators who also share our goals (or have other awesome goals we had never even considered) and we can ultimately work together to start making these ideas reality! I know this might sound kinda hokey, but I really do think it could be useful.

---

My goals for the rest of the year

1. - Restructure wiki Policies, including a rewrite of general wiki policies. Formalize the relationship between Policies and simple guidelines, and firmly establish AGF and other "guidelines" as acceptable policy on TSW.
2. - Create a process for highlighting well-written user blogs. Create new categories for user blogs. Possibly feature these blogs somewhere on the main page.
3. - Work on a Christmas/Holiday-themed wiki theme, and on a new standard wiki theme, including a new wiki logo (possibly).
4. - Reorganize and restart wiki projects, and aggressively highlight these programs and encourage users to participate. Remove administrative policies, as they are useless and no one does them anymore.
5. - Introduce new forums for Administrative discussions, Wiki development discussions, and possibly Player Theories, and migrate admin and development discussions away from the Admin Portal talk page and Development Portal talk page, thus nearly completing the process we started a year ago in moving discussions to the forums.
6. - Begin working on an implementation of Wikia's Darwin project, including updating templates to display correctly with dynamic page widths.
7. - Complete the consolidation of articles about compilation packs into combined articles.
8. - Conclude the wiki migration from Parthenon to Metabox, and possibly tweak the metabox image parameters.

What are your goals? What are some things you'd like to accomplish? -- LostInRiverview ^{talk ~ blog} 03:19, November 1, 2013 (UTC)

I've only got a few that haven't been mentioned already so I'll just list them below:

1. Overhaul user awards so that not only do they actually get some usage but also have new awards specific to certain tasks a user may carry out on-wiki. For example, we can have an award for file maintenance, counter-vandalism, reducing the number of stub pages etc.
2. Attempt to find ways for The Sims Wiki to branch out socially. We have a YouTube channel and a Steam group that are rarely used if at all. While I understand it's hard for TSW specifically to use these features, there's no harm in trying even if on a superficial level. This may also work should we wish to embrace other social platforms like Google+ or Last.fm.
3. Expand the scope of our Game Guides namespace so not only should we see more articles designed to help with gameplay but also articles referencing technical detail such as modding, fixing technical issues etc.
4. Find ways to not only improve interaction within our current community but also make it appealing to new users so that they'll stay. This is more of a long-term thing and there is really no quick fix but we'll see where this goes.
5. Making improvements to Chat via JavaScript to benefit users who wish to use the feature and possibly make some custom features optional via the Gadgets extension.
6. Establish a more in-depth ruleset for both IRC and Chat in which we can treat them as separate entities and make changes to the rules should we wish to.

That's more than I thought I had. Lost Labyrinth • (c) • (b) 18:52, November 4, 2013 (UTC)