The Sims Wiki talk:Admin Portal/resolved discussions 2013
Activity Update: December 2012
False alarm! Wikia statistics are not updating for some reason (they are only up to December 18) so there's nothing I can really display here. Our Facebook page numbers are all down from last month as well, but I attribute this mostly to the fact that the Facebook like box isn't displaying correctly on the wiki. So all-in-all, I have nothing to report, at least until Wikia stats update. -- LiR speak ~ read 04:25, January 3, 2013 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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
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 was referring to the substitution of what currently sits in {{Warning}}. Fortunately they all were properly substituted anyway but leaving it as just
- 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'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
- 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)
- 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 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)
- 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
game1parameter. 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)
- 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
- 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)
(Reset indent) The template should be fixed now. -- LostInRiverview talk ~ blog 15:25, 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 .svg){kind=small}
• (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.
- 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)
- 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)
- 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
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)
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)