The Sims Wiki talk:Admin Portal

Community

Community Portal (talk) · Community Discussions forum
Fanon Portal (talk) · Game Guide Portal (talk) · Custom Content Portal (talk) · Development Portal (talk) · Admin Portal (talk) · Main Page talk

Shortcut TSW:APTP

This is the Admin Portal Talk Page, abbreviated as the APTP. This page is used by administrators to discuss administrative action, responsibilities, and tasks.

While non-administrators are more than welcome to read, browse, and link to discussions on this talk page, they cannot actively take part in discussions. If you wish to contact an administrator, or if you require assistance with anything else that is administrator-related, please start a thread at the administrators' noticeboard.

These rules have taken effect as of July 31, 2014. Before this date, non-administrators were allowed to participate in discussions on this page, so you may see non-administrators posting here. The proposal and discussion can be found here.

Deletion of Sapphire Moondust's fanon

Today an unregistered user, claiming to be User:Sapphire Moondust, nominated several of Sapphire Moondust's fanon pages for deletion. K6ka responded to the requests by taking down the deletion templates, stating that the unregistered user would need to contact the administrators and prove in some way that they are indeed Sapphire Moondust. The unregistered user contacted K6ka and requested that the content be deleted, and K6ka repeated that the user would need to prove their identity first. The user then responded negatively, and deleted the content from Sapphire Moondust's fanon pages. C.Syde65 has restored the content again.

I think the deletion of the fanon should be discussed here. I personally am in favor of deletion, but not because of the unregistered user's request. In this case, Sapphire Moondust is globally disabled. We in the past have not, to my knowledge, made a distinction between users that are globally disabled, globally blocked, or locally blocked. Since that is the case, I think we need to treat their fanon as if Sapphire Moondust was indefinitely blocked, and delete it on those grounds. In short, the identity of the unanimous user nominating the articles for deletion, is irrelevant to the question of deletion, in my opinion. -- LiR ^{talk • blog • contribs} 22:13, January 19, 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. The user in question hasn't given any indication as to why they've been globally disabled, and they left the wiki in otherwise good standing. I don't see it as necessary to delete the fanons, considering we have plenty of "vanished" users that still have fanon on the wiki. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 22:18, January 19, 2016 (UTC)

Considering that Sapphire Moondust has left the wiki without explanation, other than that she left in a manner that suggested that she had no intention in returning, and didn't want other users to talk to her, I suspect that she scheduled her account for closure herself.

However I do not think that her fanons should be removed from the wiki, just because her account is globally disabled. I mean people still read her fanons, and we've had several featured fanons by users with globally disabled accounts. Also she never personally asked for her fanons to be removed before leaving this wiki. For those, and other reasons, I see no reason to support the deletion of her fanons. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 22:30, January 19, 2016 (UTC)

I don't think the reason behind the departure is really relevant. The fact is that the user is no longer here and, unless they can get their account re-activated, won't be coming back. Consider as well that Sapphire Moondust is the "owner" of that content, under our policies. Since Sapphire Moondust no longer has access to the Wiki (either through their own action or because of Wikia), they cannot control how that content is used. In a usual case, if an author requests deletion, we will usually oblige them, but since Sapphire Moondust is not able to log in, they cannot make that request and, indeed, don't have any control over their own content at all. That's the reason I'd support deletion... not because of the request itself, but because it removes the issue of the owner not having control, by eliminating the content entirely. -- LiR ^{talk • blog • contribs} 22:31, January 19, 2016 (UTC)

I'd say "archive" is the key word here. The fanon doesn't have to be edited or expanded for people to read and enjoy them. There is no harm in keeping them and it can be retained to serve as inspiration for future authors. If the wiki lost all its administrators and active users, Wikia staff won't close this wiki solely because of that, instead leaving it open as an archive of, well, our old lives, even if nobody edits or maintains it anymore. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 22:59, January 19, 2016 (UTC)

I really do not see the point of keeping their fanons on the wiki if they have been globally disabled. What truly is the point? They are never going to be updated, and no one has any rights whatsoever to update them as they don't belong to any of us, the only person they belong to is Sapphire Moondust, who is not around to do anything about it. Simple rule; if the user's not around anymore, then their fanons should be deleted. ~ Beds ^{(talk - blog)} 23:16, January 19, 2016 (UTC)

If Sapphire Moondust's fanons should be deleted, should the fanon pages belonging to other fanon authors with globally disabled accounts be deleted as well? Like AsherÉire's for example? ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 23:18, January 19, 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)There's a difference between archival of wiki content and archival of fanon. Wiki contributions are, by definition and by license, community-owned content. An edit I make to an article on the wiki belongs to the wiki; in fact, in editing, I agree to license that content to stand there (either in the article or in the page history) long after I am gone. That's something that is fundamental to building the wiki, or else anyone would feel free to pull any information they contributed when they leave. Fanon, on the other hand, has not been treated as community-owned content. We refer to fanon articles as "property," we have rules against other users editing a user's fanon content, and we allow users to request that their fanon is deleted. To my knowledge, we have never denied a user's request to delete their own fanon, because doing so would in essence force that user to keep content that they own on this wiki in perpetuity. If we are going to treat fanon as property, then this goes against the rights of the owner to manage their property according to their wishes.

I have no issue with keeping fanon content when a user leaves, provided that user still has access to their account and to the wiki; in other words, if the user still can exercise control over their content, regardless of whether or not they choose to do so, then I have no issues with keeping the content as an "archive." In this case, however, the user no longer has access, and has no control over what happens to the content that they own. It is unfair to deny them the ability to remove their own content if they so choose, because we allow other users to do so upon request. Therefore it seems to me that we should delete fanon content owned by users who are globally blocked and/or disabled as a matter of course, to prevent these people from having their works hosted outside of their control.

The decision of deleting or not deleting goes beyond this specific case. If we choose to keep that material, we are essentially saying that fanon authors don't have control over their content, but the content instead belongs to the community. Now I'm not arguing the point of whether fanon authors or the community should own the content, I'm merely saying that up until now, we've operated under the principle that fanon authors are the owners of their own works. Keeping this content now would go against that principle, and re-define the relationship between fanon authors, their works, and the wiki. -- LiR ^{talk • blog • contribs} 23:25, January 19, 2016 (UTC)

Use of Facebook and Twitter profiles

I've mentioned in the past that any administrator will be given rights to post on The Sims Wiki's Facebook and Twitter pages if they want them, as a part of their promotion. Since these pages are administered separately from the wiki, it falls on active administrators to continue to pass along moderation rights to new admins as they are promoted. At this time, however, very few of the wiki's active administrators have these posting/moderating rights, and even fewer actually use them. Because the few admins who do have these rights are also inactive generally, it's even more important to make sure that we have active administrators taking over the posting on these pages. The pages have been incredibly silent over the past few months, partly because the people who are supposed to be updating them (like myself) have not been.

Where I'm going with all of this is, if you are an administrator and you have a Facebook account, please contact me on my talk page so I can get you set up as a moderator on The Sims Wiki's Facebook page. Additionally, even if you do not have a Twitter account, let me know via my talk page if you would be interested in receiving access to TSW's Twitter account (you don't have to have a first Twitter account to gain access to another account). Even if you've decided against taking these rights on in the past, please reconsider it. Finally, if you know of any non-administrators who are active on the wiki and are trustworthy, consider recommending them for social media rep positions.

The social networking pages are useful tools for driving readers to certain pages, or to the wiki in general, and are good for interacting with the greater Simming community. It makes very little sense to keep the pages idle for long periods of time. Ideally we should have several people using Facebook and Twitter, keeping posts up-to-date and interacting with users.

-- LiR ^{talk • blog • contribs} 05:20, April 10, 2016 (UTC)

User:JordanBell445

Issue is resolved

User was indeffed on November 5. Right now it's up to the blocked user to appeal the block themselves. Start a new thread if someone wants to continue the discussion. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 21:36, November 28, 2016 (UTC)

It seems like the situation with User:JordanBell445 is at risk of getting out-of-hand. The user has been blocked for repeated creation of fanon articles in the canon namespace, and the block has been escalated due to sock puppetry. I really want to avoid a situation where we end up indefinitely blocking another user. This is especially true in this case, since JordanBell has not been acting in bad faith.

I feel that we should continue to block any sock puppet accounts that pop up and keep the current block in-place with the option to appeal the block through the normal procedure, since the block is longer than a week. I think we should agree on a course of action if new sock puppets pop up, rather than reacting by escalating blocks further. -- LiR ^{talk • blog • contribs} 23:44, July 29, 2016 (UTC)

I think the main reason JordanBell may have created the J.sharp3 account was because they didn't realise that their original account's block had expired. But the fact is that they should have checked to see that their first account was unblocked before using those sock-puppet accounts. I agree that the situation with JordanBell is at risk of getting out of hand, but then I do feel - and I'm sure I'm not alone when I feel this way - that if blocks don't discourage them from creating sock-puppets, what will?

I blocked the J.sharp3 account indefinitely because they were almost certainly a sock-puppet of JordanBell, but then I changed the block settings after thinking it through and deciding that enabling the auto-block, and disabling talk page access came across as too harsh. Especially given that I hadn't requested a check user to see if these accounts really were operated by the same person. A little while later, when I was on the community central chat, Upstagekinkjou came and asked me why I blocked their IP.

I asked them if they were the same user that made the JordanBell and J.sharp3 accounts, because they claimed to be Jacob Sharp who JordanBell is also known as, as evidenced by their masthead, and they admitted that they were the same user. I then asked them if they would log into their JordanBell account, so that I could verify that they were the same user, and they did just that. Again, I feel that the way JordanBell has been treated may come across as being a bit harsh, and that they may truly have lacked sufficient experience to follow our policies through. But then at the same time, it's a difficult interpretation whether they really are incapable of following our policies or if they're just refusing to listen.

I was able to get them to confess whether or not they were the same person who created all these accounts, and they admitted that they were. So they don't seem to be remotely unable to follow through with what we ask of them. I think the best option would be to keep their original account blocked for the time being, and indefinitely block any subsequent sock-puppet accounts that they create, but without lengthening the block placed upon their original account any further. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 00:16, July 30, 2016 (UTC)

I think it'd be useful to explain to JordanBell what the policy is on multiple accounts, how he/she broke it, and why it matters in the first place, while still standing strong in keeping JordanBell's block for fanon creation (which I don't think is at issue here). If the multiple accounts policy is clearly explained and JordanBell continues to choose to violate it, then and only then would it be prudent to extend the block on the main account. Up to now we've been enforcing the multiple account policy but, aside from a brief explanation of the policy violation in the notice that C.Syde gave to JordenBell when the block was extended, there has been no real explanation of the situation. In this user's case, I think it's important that we assume good faith, but at the same time assume ignorance towards our rules. If we assume that, then it means we need to be clear about what our rules are and how they're enforced. Ultimately I feel this is the best way to prevent the situation from escalating, or at least making sure that if the situation does escalate, it will be by JordanBell's own explicit actions in violation of a policy that we have made understandable enough for him/her. -- LiR ^{talk • blog • contribs} 00:52, July 30, 2016 (UTC)

It should be noted that the user was given several notices on their talk page about their creation of fanon in the canon namespace, and the user has apparently ignored every single one of them, hence why I took to blocking. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 20:29, August 1, 2016 (UTC)

I probably would have taken to blocking myself, but then I've never actually blocked a user for repeatedly creating fanon inside the canon namespace before, and before they were actually blocked for doing so, I was unsure whether blocking them for repeatedly adding fanon to the canon namespace would be something that others would consider fair. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 06:02, August 2, 2016 (UTC)

Blocks are meant to prevent further disruption, not to punish users. The user was being disruptive (intentionally or unintentionally) by creating fanon in the wrong namespace.

And as for block evasion, they've created yet another sockpuppet account, and so far all attempts to contact the user have failed. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 13:15, August 4, 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I personally don't see blocks as a punishment, but to prevent further disruption, and as a consequence for the said user's actions. When this said user created their latest sock-puppet account, the first thing they did was enter chat, and tried to contact me via PM, but they only got as far as saying "Hey" before I banned them.

I understood that they probably only wanted to discuss their block with me, but I felt that their block evading was more important than their wanting to contact me. Their original account still have access to their talk page, but they haven't shown any signs that they are aware of this. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 01:32, August 5, 2016 (UTC)

Lucky98 block

Issue is resolved

This thread's closure is long overdue. User was indeffed on September 30. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 21:34, November 28, 2016 (UTC)

I feel that the indefinite block against Lucky98 (talk · contribs · editcount · block · modify rights · logs · block log) is too strict. The user's first block was for 31 hours, and the second block escalated all the way to an indefinite block. I feel that an indefinite block in this case is not justified, and a much shorter duration (like a 1-week block) is more in order for this situation. -- LiR ^{talk · blog · contribs} 13:52, August 26, 2016 (UTC)

They've been here for over a month, and it is also worth noting that they have also been posting their content on other wikis, including some that I am admin on and several that they have founded. They have also vandalized a number of our pages, such as [1] and [2]. I do not expect to see any further constructive edits from this account, especially considering that they already have their own wikis where their content is more suitable being uploaded there, which is why I indeffed them with a preventative measure in mind. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 14:53, August 26, 2016 (UTC)

This user's brand of vandalism is relatively low-key and low-impact. Even if they do vandalize, they cause very little harm and are almost immediately rolled back. I think issuing a block as a preventative measure eliminates the opportunity for substantive change from this individual. And it shouldn't fall to us to block a user based on conduct on other wikis unless that conduct directly affects this wiki. -- LiR ^{talk · blog · contribs} 15:17, August 26, 2016 (UTC)

You can reduce the length of the block accordingly, although I still stand by what I say. This comes from my experience working on the English Wikipedia where even low-key vandals, if they persist, are eligible to be blocked indefinitely if they don't have any constructive edits. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 15:35, August 26, 2016 (UTC)

It seems that the practice to which you refer applies to people who only vandalize, without making or attempting to make any other contributions of positive merit. This in essence implies that the user is not acting in good faith and therefore should be indefinitely blocked since they show absolutely no intent to act in good faith. Lucky98 has apparently acted in bad faith in certain cases, but they have also made other edits that could be interpreted as detrimental yet still assumed to be in good faith. Any such edit would not fall under the definition of vandalism, and hence the account wouldn't be subject to being treated as a "Vandalism-only account".

I don't personally have high hopes for this user (though I'd be open to being proven wrong), but I still feel that we ought to assume good faith wherever we can and not be punitive with our blocks. If this user returns to bad faith editing after the end of a temporary block, we should consider further escalation. -- LiR ^{talk · blog · contribs} 16:21, August 26, 2016 (UTC)

I must admit that I was a little surprised when I discovered that they'd been blocked indefinitely, even if they had vandalised other wikis, since they'd only been blocked one other time, in which the first block they received lasted less than 2 days. I don't have very high hopes for this user either, since they have made some low-key vandalism, as well as creating nonsense fanon articles. Fanon articles that I would have perceived as spam, had I not assumed good faith, and tagged their fanon pages as stubs, whilst giving them time to add proper content in their fanon pages in the near future.

Not all their edits seem to have been remotely done in bad faith, although they don't seem to have made any edits that I wouldn't perceive as questionable. At the present time, I feel that an indefinite block in this case was too harsh, but I am open to being convinced that an indefinite block in this situation was truly justifiable. I think they should be given a clear handwritten explanation as to what they are doing wrong and how to fix it. And if they don't improve when their block has expired, I wouldn't be opposed to them receiving an indefinite block then. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 06:18, August 27, 2016 (UTC)

---

The time has come to revive this discussion as the user has now been blocked yet again, this time for two weeks, and again for vandalizing pages.

At this point I am tempted to block them indefinitely as a vandalism only account, as such a user on Wikipedia would've been blocked in this fashion by now. So far I do not see any attempts by the user to edit constructively. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 16:48, September 11, 2016 (UTC)

As I mentioned before in my previous comment, I would be open to the idea of giving them a clear handwritten explanation as to what they are doing wrong and how to fix it. But somehow, given that they were issued a formal warning recently, and then showed no signs of improvement, hence why they have been blocked yet again, I don't really see how giving them a clear handwritten explanation would help convince them to stop making nonconstructive edits and start editing constructively. Therefore, I do feel that it might be justified to give them an indefinite block after this block has expired, if they haven't shown any signs of improvement when that time comes. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 21:15, September 11, 2016 (UTC)

Obtaining Vanguard support for portability reforms on the wiki

I would like to contact Vanguard and obtain their help (hopefully hands-on help) in updating our templates, css coding, and other design and layout elements on the wiki, in order to ensure that our wiki is portable to different devices. Right now I feel we are largely failing in this regard, for a multitude of different reasons.

None of us can claim to be experts in css or in the function of our most complex templates (especially infobox templates). As none of us are experts, everything that we've assembled has been borrowed from other sources or added purely through guess-and-check methods This means that our code is probably poorly optimized and inefficient. We're also prevented from making any large-scale changes to these systems because we don't have a full understanding of how they function. The idea is, by building new portable templates and designs from the ground-up, we will have a more streamlined code that is more easily understood by current and future editors/administrators, and able to be adapted and edited more in the future without a fear that we could be breaking functionality.

There hasn't been a huge push on this wiki yet to pursue portability. I think this lack of effort has been to our detriment. By making it harder for people on different devices to read our content, we make TSW less of a destination for the information we provide. Fewer people coming here to seek out information in turn reduces the number of readers who choose to become editors, and thus we also get decreased community interaction and engagement. If we can rebuild the wiki into one that is portable and readable across platforms, we could draw in new readers who could in turn become new editors.

So, I'm proposing that we contact the Vanguard team and see how to move forward with portability. I want to stress that their goal is to design or redesign features on the wiki without impacting function or design for desktop/laptop users. All of us edit TSW from traditional devices and I don't think any of us want to see design or functionality compromised in order to benefit mobile devices. But if there's a way to improve the reading experience for mobile users without a major impact on desktop readers, or if there's even a way to improve experiences across-the-board, then why not do so? Vanguard members are not allowed to implement changes unilaterally, so we don't have to worry about them forcing through unwanted designs without our approval. They can, however, be a source of new ideas and expertise, and allow us to make some changes to our layout and design that have been needed for some time.

If this idea is received well here, I will send in a request for a member of Vanguard to engage the community and get the ball rolling on making substantive changes. -- LiR ^{talk · blog · contribs} 18:05, November 27, 2016 (UTC)

I have had one member of the Van-Guard team replace my print screen of the old Wikia the Home of Fandom logo with a higher resolution one on my wiki - my one was more blurry when shrunk, but then that doesn't really count as a potential unwanted change, since it would have been pretty obvious that I wouldn't have had a problem with it.

Although I do consider myself to be a pro at CSS in terms of recolouring skins etc, I admit that a lot of the CSS I have used for templates in the past was borrowed from other sources, and I admittedly owe a lot of my CSS experience to the inspect element option, on top of owing some experience to another user who's experience helped my own experience in CSS to increase.

But enough risks of going partially off topic here. I think that this proposal is a good idea since we do really need to have designs or functionality compromised in order to benefit mobile devices. I for one don't care much for mobile devices since I don't use them, but a lot of users that I've heard of do use them. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 07:55, November 28, 2016 (UTC)

You know what, why don't we give this a shot? I think it's time we got some real pros to fix up our pages. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 04:17, November 30, 2016 (UTC)

I agree that this would be a great way to increase accessibility and versatility. ~ Waikikamukow (Talk) 04:23, December 1, 2016 (UTC)

Takenaka Emika's block

I noticed that Takenaka Emika (talk · contribs · editcount · block · modify rights · logs · block log) was recently blocked for inserting false information. While I'm not opposed to the block, I do find it quite bothersome to see that this user was not even warned beforehand.

I would like to remind all administrators that, except for very obvious and for very serious cases, all users should be warned at least once before a block is applied, especially for first offenses. You can either use the Warning template or use one of the newer ones here. Jumping straight to a block can be seen by many users as being too rash and impulsive, which are two adjectives that should not be used to describe our administrative team, and definitely not any of our users. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 03:05, December 10, 2016 (UTC)

I was about to issue a warning to Takenaka Emika when I noticed that they'd redone an edit which had been undone shortly before. Between that, and the user's record of vandalism and lack of good-faith edits (except for a single brief fanon comment), I went straight to a 1-day block. Dharden (talk) 03:49, December 10, 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that too and it took me by surprise as well. When I discovered that Dharden had been informed about the user and their actions, I did consider leaving a warning on that user's talk page, but before I was able to do that, the user had already been blocked.

I can't deny the fact that I had taken some actions a few months ago that may have been seen as rather rash and impulsive, but then I was facing problems caused by that user's disobedient and obscure attempts on other wikis to aggravate me on purpose, and I had already asked them not to necro-bump an ancient message that I'd left two years previously, but they ignored me and kept trying to bump the message, and I just couldn't let them aggravate me further.

Blocking them was one of the toughest choices that I can remember making, but it seemed to be the only suitable option for me at the time. I could have locked the user talk page for a few hours, but doing so would have contradicted guidelines of this page, and I just couldn't bring myself to counter them. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 04:00, December 10, 2016 (UTC)

This is not good. Administrators should not be acting on impulse and they should definitely not issue a block or take administrative action when pissed off or as retaliation. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 13:41, December 10, 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that Dharden was acting impulsively or emotionally in this case. Perhaps the block was premature or incorrect, but not terribly so. I agree in principle that we should warn first, block last, but every situation is unique and must be evaluated individually. LiR ^{talk · blog · contribs} 14:30, December 10, 2016 (UTC)

I agree with that. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 19:09, December 10, 2016 (UTC)

Blocking users after warnings

Two users were blocked indefinitely after receiving warnings for behavior on the wiki. The issue is, the users were blocked after the warnings were issued, but before those users did anything further to warrant receiving a block. In my opinion, the blocks in those cases were unacceptable and I have reversed them.

The purpose of warnings are to allow users to correct their behavior. If we go ahead and block—especially indefinitely block—users before they're able to demonstrate that they've learned from their behavior and changed, then we totally defeat the purpose of even issuing warnings in the first place. Blocking immediately after a warning also fails to assume good faith on the part of those editors we've warned.

If you have an issue with my decision to unblock those users, please address it here. -- LiR ^{talk · blog · contribs} 00:56, December 18, 2016 (UTC)

I concur wholeheartedly. Please read the warning messages; they were not written for fun. It does not make sense for a user to be told that they will be blocked if their behaviour continues, and then be blocked when they did not continue said behaviour. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 00:58, December 18, 2016 (UTC)

As a whole, I wouldn't say that I have an issue with your decision to reverse the blocks. But the reason they were indefinitely blocked is because they were both in direct violation of Wikia's terms of use by uploading pornographic images. Several users have been indefinitely blocked in the past without warning for this kind of behaviour. I guess in this situation, we need a better way to determine what should happen to users who upload pornographic images, whether they should be given a chance to redeem themselves, or whether they should be blocked on the spot. Uploading pornographic images is completely unacceptable and is not something that should be taken lightly. It is a clear demonstration of bad faith. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 01:15, December 18, 2016 (UTC)

Those are fair points regarding the reasons for blocking. However, in these specific cases, administrators (myself included) chose to forego an immediate block in exchange for a stern warning, only to have those warnings overridden hours later without the warned users doing anything additionally to violate policy. I feel it should remain an administrator's prerogative whether to issue a warning or a block for a policy violation, rather than a blanket rule. In these cases, the users were given final warnings, so any additional pornographic uploads would have been met by blocks and any porn would've been immediately deleted. Even clear demonstrations of bad faith should not be met by immediate blocks in all but the worst cases, and then should almost never result in indefinite blocks until all other courses of action are exhausted. So, I agree with your justification for blocking, but feel you should have respected the warnings already in place and left well enough alone. -- LiR ^{talk · blog · contribs} 01:33, December 18, 2016 (UTC)

Okay. Well, I still disagree that users should be given another chance after committing such actions, but I'll be more careful to avoid overriding already issued warnings given to users that have done those sorts of actions. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 01:44, December 18, 2016 (UTC)

I think users should be given one final chance even after committing such offenses, if only because the "Zero Tolerance" policy is a policy that has failed to deter crime when put into practice; such a policy, in practice, only increased the number of incarcerations with little to no reduction in crime. It is absolutely possible for even a very bad vandal to eventually become a productive editor, and while most vandals won't take on such an opportunity, we may not want to slam all the doors shut immediately. In other words, {{Uw-vandalism4im}} (and templates of the like) were created for a reason; they're meant to be used in these circumstances, and they're already pretty serious by themselves. If an editor stops editing when they receive an only warning, then the problem is solved right there -- no block necessary. If an editor continues, then we can block, and problem solved again. A warning is a good practice for administrators, and it helps to give the impression that we are more rational and civilized, as many wikis and websites out there will block or ban you on a first offense, without warning (I've been on the receiving end of such communities before). True professionalism, or at least good etiquette, should involve a notification before any drastic action is taken. Your electric company warns you about an overdue payment before cutting the power, right? —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 02:14, December 18, 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Additionally it's important that if we are forced to "slam the door" in response to repeated policy violations, that we not "lock the door" as well. That is, long-term and indefinite-term blocks should be used only in the most extreme circumstances to prevent ongoing disruption and abuse that isn't quelled by other means, specifically a series of warnings, edit restrictions and/or escalating blocks. Just as it is often inappropriate to skip past warnings, it is almost always inappropriate to jump immediately to a permanent or essentially-permanent block. Any such block should be discussed by the administrative team before it's issued.

I must underline that we need to assume good faith wherever we can. A statement like "I still disagree that users should be given another chance" fails to give the benefit of the doubt. The statement is also very bite-y. And, perhaps most egregiously, it undermines any attempt to reform problem users by passing judgment and assigning guilt permanently, slamming the door permanently on any chance for them to become positive members of the community and removing any incentive for them to try and operate within our rules. -- LiR ^{talk · blog · contribs} 03:57, December 18, 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, I would expect a warning from an electric company about an overdue payment, before cutting the power. But pornography has almost always been dealt with pretty seriously, from what I can remember.

Okay, well I'm willing to reconsider my approach to this situation, after what has been stated above, even though I'm currently unsure whether I'm fully supportive or fully opposed to either perspective, at least on the inside. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 05:17, December 18, 2016 (UTC)

Thesims2pets

Thesims2pets (talk · contribs · editcount · block · modify rights · logs · block log)

This user first joined our wiki, apparently having communicated with PhanAndDil on Wikia chat; no logs exist of this conversation, but it would appear that Thesims2pets was slightly critical of PhanAndDil leaving the chatroom. They then proceeded to mass-tag random fanon pages for speedy deletion without providing a reason. All nominations were declined and reverted. Icemandeaf quickly blocked them for 72 hours.

After their first block expired, they created Lola Duff, which appears to be a valid subject, and thus worthy of an article on the wiki. However, the article they created was of substantially poor quality, and after their creation they appeared to have "vandalized" their own article, such as [3] and [4].

On December 18, I banned them from Wikia chat after taking note (and logging) an altercation between them and PhanAndDil. Both users were noticeably bitter, with both of them telling each other to "Shut up". The incident seemed to have died down almost immediately when I joined the chat room. After some time, PhanAndDil, and later I, left. Auror Andrachome remained in chat when Thesims2pets made a number of messages. I had asked Auror to prepare a log of chat events for me, and I quickly rejoined chat to verify some of the more recent messages. Thesims2pets had inserted profanity and an inappropriate emoji into chat. Given the recent history in chat, I decided to ban the user from chat. Not too soon afterwards, they began complaining about their ban.

Today they created How to have a 7 member family on the sims 2 pets for ps2, which I moved to Game guide:How to have a 7 member family on the sims 2 pets for ps2, since it was not appropriate for the mainspace. They later moved it to Fanon:How to have a 7 member family on the sims 2 pets for ps2. C.Syde65 later blocked them for continued disruption, and as the article they recently created and moved was of extremely poor quality, I deleted it.

After their block, a user who went by the nickname "Joshua" joined our ChatLounge channel and told people to "Go to hell". He was also seen disrupting other channels on the ChatLounge network. Their behaviour closely resembled the one seen on Wikia chat, and I am quite certain that the two users are the same. MrBenC, being the owner and an oper on the network, has since dealt with the user appropriately. The user did not join the freenode channel.

This user has received numerous warnings, and currently they are on their second block, excluding the block they received on Community Central. At this point, I would agree that an indefinite block is warranted if their behaviour continues after their current block expires. I would like some additional opinions on this, but I believe this is the best course of action, given this (brief) history. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 04:53, December 19, 2016 (UTC)

EDIT 21/12/2016 Perhaps it would also be worth noting that the user had tripped several abuse filters, as seen here.

I wouldn't be opposed to them receiving an indefinite block if their behaviour continues after their current block expires, although I do feel that should that be the case, then the user should be informed that they'll receive an indefinite block if their behaviour continues. That way they won't be able to complain saying that it never occurred to them that their next block would be indefinite. That's just how I see it personally, but yeah, I do feel that an indefinite block would be the best course of action, given their history. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 05:10, December 19, 2016 (UTC)

I concur with k6ka and C.Syde65. If, after their block expires, they continue to exhibit the same behavior, I feel an indefinite block (with appeal available) is fair. -- LiR ^{talk · blog · contribs} 05:42, December 19, 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, if their behaviour continues after the block, and they receive an indefinite block then, I definitely would be opposed to the idea of them receiving an indefinite block without talk page access, especially without them receiving a warning that they'd be indefinitely blocked the next time they did something that was blatantly nonconstructive. But then I always make sure the user has talk page access when issuing an indefinite block anyway, unless the said user was a sock-puppet, or they'd done something seriously inappropriate which is what caused me to mess up two days ago. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 21:36, December 19, 2016 (UTC)

I would like to note that the user has created a sockpuppet account, Pets1 (talk · contribs · editcount · block · modify rights · logs · block log). Their edits involve asking about their block (A dead giveaway), having the same profile picture, and even revealing their name, matching the one seen and used on IRC. I have blocked the sock indefinitely, and have reset the block on the main account. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 19:50, December 20, 2016 (UTC)

I would have to agree with you there. And I see a couple of accounts that have been created like this. – Icemandeaf (talk) 20:08, December 20, 2016 (UTC)

I would have to agree as well. I think that it is certainly fair that the block issued on their first account is reset, since they've created a sock-puppet account to try and get around their block. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 20:57, December 20, 2016 (UTC)

The user has now created a second sockpuppet account, cleverly named Pets2, which I've indef blocked. I now would support and recommend an indefinite block on the main account, with a restoration of talk page access on the primary account in a week or two once we're sure that he's stopped creating new socks. -- LiR ^{talk · blog · contribs} 23:21, December 22, 2016 (UTC)

Support indefinite block, although I'm willing to restore talk page access on the main account as it would seem that the user wants a chance to repeal their block. If they abuse this, it can be revoked again immediately. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 23:30, December 22, 2016 (UTC)

I'll be honest that I'm not giving full support towards the recommendation of an indefinite block on the main account, but considering that they are using sock-puppets to get around their block, I guess I can give moderate support, since it doesn't seem like they're going to cooperate with any other option, in-fact I'm a tad unconvinced that placing an indefinite block on their main account will take away their temptation to create more sock-puppets to get around their block. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 23:34, December 22, 2016 (UTC)

---

I have blocked another sockpuppet, titled Simlover3 (talk · contribs · editcount · block · modify rights · logs · block log). I have also blocked an IP address that is linked to the sockmaster. At this point, the user is essentially indefinitely blocked, and I take back my previous point about restoring conditional talk page access. The user clearly shows no interest in cooperating with us whatsoever. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 03:25, December 24, 2016 (UTC)

I had a feeling this would happen. I can safely say that I retract any support that I might have had at letting them keep their talk page access in-case they were able to convince us that their block was no longer relevant. They clearly don't seem to have any purpose here, other than messing around and ignoring our guidelines for the sake of seeking attention. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 03:33, December 24, 2016 (UTC)

Opjunk (talk · contribs · editcount · block · modify rights · logs · block log) and Yaguj (talk · contribs · editcount · block · modify rights · logs · block log) have also been blocked as socks. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 01:04, January 1, 2017 (UTC)

Just goes to show you how my activity has dropped significantly over these last few months. Didn't even see them. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 01:10, January 1, 2017 (UTC)

Yuyuyuyuyuy (talk · contribs · editcount · block · modify rights · logs · block log) Blocked as another sock. Notably they also vandalized the Answers Wiki. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 03:26, January 2, 2017 (UTC)

Blocked The simmer 1000 (talk · contribs · editcount · block · modify rights · logs · block log) as a sock. Please contact me privately over IRC for a more thorough explanation. Thanks, —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 18:28, April 11, 2017 (UTC)

Blocked The gamer 1000000 (talk · contribs · editcount · block · modify rights · logs · block log) as a sock. Again, please contact me privately for a more thorough explanation. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 00:54, May 1, 2017 (UTC)

Administrator participation

2016 was a pretty bad year for The Sims Wiki. We've seen community engagement drop to new lows, community features fail to draw in even modest participation, and stalemates on important community discussions. Our readership has dwindled, our editor base has eroded, and several previously-active administrators have left us or have significantly decreased their participation in the community. 2016 is the first year since 2007 where not a single new administrator was promoted; in fact, no users whatsoever even applied for administrative rights for the entire year, and only one user applied for and received rollback rights. 2016 saw an administrative team barely functioning as a team; we have no cohesion, no coherent message, no shared mission, and no real clear goals for what we want to accomplish on the wiki. I feel that the outcome of 2016 can be blamed on many things, but the faults I've pointed out among the administrators, myself included, are in my opinion a major contributor to these ongoing problems.

If we want 2017 to be any better than 2016, something needs to change in the community. And, for better or worse, as the administrators of the wiki, we are essentially the leaders of the community. In many cases, we're really the only active community that's even still editing here. That means that we need to do a better job of taking up the mantle of leadership and engagement. We can't expect other editors to care about our community discussions, established processes, user promotions, or improving the wiki on any significant scale, if we don't demonstrate that we care ourselves.

What I would like to see is increased participation across the board from administrators in the coming year. On top of that, I'd love to see more interaction between the admins via the Admin Portal talk page. This page ought to be more useful than just a place to discuss the issuance of indefinite blocks. This should be a place where we can collectively determine how to lead the wiki and come up with a common mission and set of goals that guides us all in our actions on the wiki.

We may not personally agree on every detail of every idea, but I feel we can come up with a very sensible way forward on many issues. Take for example the push I've been trying to make towards making the wiki mobile-friendly. I have sadly received pretty lukewarm support in this area, and as a result when I try to work with members of the Vanguard team to bring forward the necessary changes, I can't speak with confidence that my fellow administrators will even support what I ultimately bring forward. Again, I don't think we need to be in lockstep agreement on every point, but we should at least agree on broad principles - we ought to have pages and templates that are usable by as many readers as possible, and we need to do a better job of reaching out to mobile readers that make up an increasing share of our overall readership. If we can agree on these broad ideas and all of us steadfastly and passionately dedicate ourselves to pursuing them, then the other minor details will resolve themselves with time.

When I come onto the wiki, I feel discouraged and disheartened. I have to believe that you all feel a similar way. I feel like there's nothing I can do to fix the significant issues I see, because I can't rally a non-existent and non-engaged community around something that requires community consensus. I feel like baby steps are all that will have a hope of succeeding because I can't push the bubble too much, and that baby steps aren't sufficient to solve many of our problems. I feel that you, the other administrators, are helpful generally, but that we do not communicate as well or as often as we should, or about as many things as we should, and that this lack of communication and coordination weakens us all. I deeply want this to change. I want to come onto the wiki and feel inspired to act boldly, to make big changes and to work with other people who share the same passion and energy, even if we don't agree on everything we want to do. If you feel the way I do, and you want this too, then I encourage you to lend your voice to this discussion.

The administrators lead this wiki, for better or worse. If we can come together and lead together, then I believe that we can finally start to solve so many of the problems that have been plaguing us for so long. This is not an impossible task, but it is impossible if we try to do it alone. One person did not write this wiki alone, and individual administrators cannot lead it alone. We need to talk to each other, and we need to start right now.

As a result, I've started this section. My hope is that we can open conversations between administrators about diverse and difficult issues. I want this page to be useful for philosophical discussion, nuanced policy debate, reason, inspiration, and compromise. Mostly, I just don't want to feel like I'm talking to an empty room. I need you to engage with me as well, and I need to engage with you. We need to engage with each other if any of this is ever going to work.

So, let's talk. Let's talk about a pet project of yours that you want someone to look at or help you with. Let's talk about a policy you're thinking of writing, and the direction you want to go. Let's talk about your ideas on how to improve our templates, or our articles, or our categories, or our fanon. Let's talk about the million and one different big and small ways we can work together better. Let's talk.-- LiR ^{talk · blog · contribs} 04:58, January 5, 2017 (UTC)

I found the changes that I had experienced here in 2016 to be rather surprising and quite disappointing, especially after the triumphs of December 2013 (when I first joined), and 2014 and 2015. The Sim's Pen was the first example I can remember of the introduction to what has become a less active and dysfunctional community as a whole. I can remember in the last issue of the Sim's Pen that I ever wrote that I had added a notice to encourage users to volunteer to write future editions, since it was like four weeks but only two issues were published. But to this very day, my last issue of the Sim's Pen turned out to be the penultimate issue on the Sims wiki.

By that time I had also noticed that the community in general was becoming less and less socially interactive, at least on the surface. I remember trying to find ways to get people to participate in battles without shopping for participants. These attempts were not very successful, if they were successful at all. Sometime during 2016 I learned that several of the users on the Sims wiki - I'm talking about non-admins here, not admins - that I was socially connected with had decided to become less active here, not because their personal lives were getting in the way - or at least if that was a reason, it wasn't the main reason - but because they'd become discouraged from collaborating here, because they said they felt that the admins here, or the bureaucrats at least thought that they were holy, like they thought they were better than everyone else.

I do not believe that their interpretations are correct, but I can definitely see why they would interpret that. I think I can also recall a couple of users becoming discouraged from the wiki because they think the admins blame everyone else for their problems when as far as those users were considered, the admins were the cause. And from what I've heard from those users, the open criticism towards the Sims 4 didn't do much to encourage them to remain active here either. For months I have wanted to try and solve the problem to whatever it is that has made the community go from being what it was in 2013-5 to what it is now. I am an admin, and I like to be socially interactive, but I've always considered myself to be stronger as an editor than as a community leader. I do have some leadership skills somewhere, but I've always considered editing to be my strong points. So while I am willing to help try and get all this to work out, I can't deny that I can't do it on my own, and I'm sure others can say the same for themselves. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 21:55, January 5, 2017 (UTC)

I won't commit to writing The Sims Pen myself, since I've never been big into the fanon namespace, but there's nothing stopping you or someone else from bringing it back if you want to. I'd suggest, if you do think it's worth bringing back, only bringing it back on a non-regular basis. I think a big thing that killed the Weekly News and TSP was the requirement that it be written every week regardless of whether there was someone who wanted to write it or whether there was anything worth writing about. The blogs should be works of passion, not something that becomes a chore, in my opinion. You can definitely tell when someone is writing a news post just out of necessity; it's pretty clear when someone is phoning it in, and that likely would translate to fewer people reading future blog posts.

Your point about the perceived attitude of admins/crats bothers me, because it's hard for me to see if that is true but at the same time it's easy to see how a user could see it that way. I don't want to say whether these users were right or wrong, but I think the mere fact that they have that perception is in itself a problem that needs to be fixed. The solution, in my opinion, shouldn't be any attempt to directly persuade them that they're wrong - that approach would be way too heavy-handed and would likely reinforce the idea that the admins feel superior and feel that the non-admin users are incorrect. Maybe we're not doing a good job of explaining the actions we take? Or, maybe we are making decisions that ought to be put up to greater community discussion? I'd definitely be interested in learning why this perception exists. You say you can see why they feel that way - can you elaborate on why that might be?

I think it's important to remember that leadership doesn't equal dictatorship. You don't have to be in an elected or appointed position to be a "leader." Likewise, we cannot demand that users on TSW be admins before they're considered leaders and taken seriously. Being engaged with others, taking the initiative when needed, and being helpful to others are aspects of leadership that I've seen you possess, so I think it's unfair to say that you've not been a community leader.

There's nothing wrong in admitting that we can't do it all alone. I've been feeling so frustrated for so long because I've felt like there's so much to do and it's all falling on my shoulders because no one else has been bothered to help. I think one of my big failings is that I need to learn to ask for help, and I need to be open to the advise and assistance that others give me. I also need to be more engaged with others, and provide the support that others need. I want us to work together as a cohesive administrative team, because I feel that will help us build a community. So, is there anything I can work with you on? And, would you be willing to help me out too? -- LiR ^{talk · blog · contribs} 03:08, January 8, 2017 (UTC)

I was shown a couple of messages back in April of last year which could be one explanation of 2016 not fairing as well as it could otherwise have done, although I'm not sure exactly how much it counts for since it was never confirmed whether the said IP user was the user they claimed to be. Before I was shown those messages, I wasn't convinced that they were the same user, even though they were from the same area as evidenced by their IP address, but after seeing those messages, it seems possible that they were indeed the same user, though without check user access, which is out of the question, it can't be certain whether or not the two users were the same. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 04:20, January 9, 2017 (UTC)

Being engaged with others, taking the initiative when needed, and being helpful to others are aspects of leadership that I've seen you possess, so I think it's unfair to say that you've not been a community leader. Well you're definitely right about that, and I guess I can't argue with that. After all, I do remember being perceived as a leader on several occasions, several of which were long before I became an admin. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 09:24, January 9, 2017 (UTC)

Administrators lead by example, not by barking out orders. I recently passed RFA on the English Wikipedia and I can tell you that I have no extra power over other users, yet people still tend to look at me as a leader (Despite the whole thing about adminship being "No Big Deal"; it's no big deal and a big deal at the same time). It's important to note that leaders are different from "bosses". Bosses are depicted as stereotypical men with a big belly and a bad temper wearing a suit and a tie and yelling out words that are larger than themselves, while leaders are seen as those who get on the ground and work with everyone else rather than on top of them.

And as an important note to all administrators who are reading this: participation is still entirely voluntary and no one is obliged to "work" for The Sims Wiki. Administrators are never required to use their tools under any circumstances. And that's another thing: good leaders lead because they choose to lead, not because they have to lead (And I know Socrates would disagree with me on this one). —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 04:09, January 10, 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 04:11, January 10, 2017 (UTC)

2016 was a bad year in general, I think most people around the world can agree. Too many people dying, both famous and unknown; too much war and conflict and disunity going on; too many llamas of the drama (Dramas of the llama?) getting involved in politics, etc. A lot of the websites I frequent have certainly felt the effects of 2016.

It was a rough year for me personally as well. Sure, there were many bright moments, but also a lot of darker ones. My studies have frequently gotten in the way of things, so I've had to temporarily give up a number of hobbies I like doing (Which I'm kicking myself for; hopefully next semester I'll be able to push back and reclaim some of my passions and regain some of my sanity). I haven't had nearly as much time to spend on-wiki as I'd like to, so my participation has dwindled. I seem to be spending more time on IRC in general (so not just our IRC channel) and it's quite a time waster, though I haven't been able to get much done productively most of the time that way.

So, new year. Let's keep 2016 in our minds but not in the foreground; remember the past but don't let it garner pessimism. I was thinking about finalizing Forum:Bot policy, which has been open for far too long now. Drafting it into a real policy page and getting it out of the way is something we want to get done this year, not wait until 2018. Forum:RFA reform is also something I'd like to get out of the way; organizing our user permissions information and request pages is good. Plus, and this has been mentioned somewhere, our policy pages are a terrible mess. Larger policies should be given their own page and the wording should be toned down to sound more friendly to newbies, because (and let's be honest here) how many people really want to contribute to a website whose policies sound like something out of a legal document?

Content-wise, I'm still personally bitter about TS4, but I also realize that we have lots of articles involving TS1 and TS2 that could use some work. The wiki is one wiki with several sections, and even if our TS4 section is subpar, we can still work on content from previous games at the very least. I mean, it's better that some parts of the wiki get prettied-up as opposed to none at all.

I can't list all my thoughts here right now, right away, but we'll see how things go. Cheers to 2017! —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 00:32, January 7, 2017 (UTC)

Rewriting the policy pages has been a plan of mine for quite some time, but I feel like any attempt to do so results in me spinning my wheels in the mud for awhile. I'd love to team up with you and tackle the beast together (along with anyone else who wants to help out).

I'm not really impressed with TS4 personally, but I feel like C.Syde65 raises a good point - if users perceive that we're biased against a game they enjoy, they may be less willing to help us improve our articles on that game. I've seen a lot of negative reaction to the game on the wiki, and I think it wouldn't hurt to tone it down a little bit. Obviously everyone is entitled to their own opinion. But, something is giving users the perception that the wiki as a whole values certain content over other content, and that is a problem. -- LiR ^{talk · blog · contribs} 03:08, January 8, 2017 (UTC)

Revival?

So this thread has been quiet for two months now, and I thought it might be a good time to start discussing some strategies to get some wheels turning again.

I've noticed that the quality of the wiki has been on a progressive decline. I won't pin the blame on specific users, but it does seem that we're receiving more and more edits that are filled with choppy or poor grammar, typos, or otherwise badly written text, and there are too few experienced or good editors fixing these problems. The word I'm looking for is copyediting. Wikipedia has a page about doing this and even has a Guild of Copy Editors. While we may not get to something of such a scale, I think it's worth creating a few pages that will help get us on track about copyediting. Failing that, I think we could start a few "Copyediting Drives" of our own and work at a set of pages in a category or topic and copyedit those articles.

This is currently the least I, as a non-TS4 player, can do about TS4 articles, since I obviously cannot write much content about these articles. However, there's a lot of articles on TSW, and I can't exactly get to 12K articles all on my own.

Thoughts? —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 20:36, March 11, 2017 (UTC)

New accounts created by same person

I just noticed on Recent Changes that the accounts MidgetSimmer (talk), The Midget Simmer (talk), MidgetBrigette (talk), and MidgieBrigi (talk) have just been created, all within five minutes of each other. This is obviously the same person creating multiple accounts; I'd presume that they are having some difficulties in completing the registration, or they do not realize that their account registration has been successful. As such, I think we should refrain from blocking any of the accounts, and instead allow this person the time to successfully log into one of the accounts, where we can then contact them and give further assistance. -- LiR ^{talk · blog · contribs} 00:04, January 7, 2017 (UTC)

There is also BrigetteJudith (talk), which has actually created a userpage. Dharden (talk) 01:04, January 7, 2017 (UTC)

Rearranging rights requests pages

I'm planning on rearranging the user rights requests pages. This is the hierarchy I'm thinking of:

• The Sims Wiki:User rights remains as the "parent" page for the other request pages.
  • The Sims Wiki:Requests for administratorship - This page would be re-purposed, absorbing the separate requests for Bureaucratship page
    • Requests for sysop
    • Requests for bureaucrat
  • The Sims Wiki:Requests for moderator rights - This page would cover both Chat Moderator and Content Moderator rights requests; Content Mod rights requests page does not currently exist, so the standards for requesting those rights would have to be finalized and added (these standards are under inactive discussion at Forum:Content moderators)
    • Requests for Chat Mod
    • Requests for Content Mod
  • The Sims Wiki:Requests for rollback - This would remain a separate requests page
  • The Sims Wiki:Requests for IRC Channel operator - This would remain a separate requests page

All other "special positions" would be dissolved, or else the formal request pages for them would be removed in favor of a request placed on the Admin's Noticeboard instead. The only position that I believe is in need of retention is the social media rep position.

Can anyone think of a more appropriate way to arrange the requests? My goal in this process is to cut down on the number of requests pages we have, and possibly streamline the requests process for minor positions like Social Media rep or rollback. -- LiR ^{talk · blog · contribs} 03:30, January 8, 2017 (UTC)

The way you have it outlined, it looks OK to me. Dharden (talk) 03:40, January 8, 2017 (UTC)

Per Dharden. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 03:42, January 8, 2017 (UTC)

Vanyaloveis

Vanyaloveis (talk · contribs · editcount · block · modify rights · logs · block log)

Vanyaloveis edits mostly on the Russian Sims Wiki, although they have made a few edits here on the English wiki as well. While I'm sure they are editing in good faith, given the fact that they do have some constructive edits, they've recently reached a point where I unfortunately feel an APTP thread has become necessary. They've been known to remove external links on the wiki simply because they're dead, rather than trying to fix it with {{Wayback}} or tagging it with {{Deadlink}}. They've been warned about this behaviour before and they continue to remove external links. They have not responded to any of the messages left on their talk page about this. They've been doing this since August 2014.

At this point I would like another administrator to take a look at this situation and give a second opinion on this. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 00:36, February 9, 2017 (UTC)

When I first came across this message, the first idea that popped into my head was a formal warning, though I'm unsure if that would be the best practice, given that there's no evidence that they are acting in bad faith, in-fact I agree with the claim that they are editing in good faith, and that they do have some constructive edits. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 03:03, February 9, 2017 (UTC)

I wonder if trying to contact the user on the Russian Sims Wiki might be a better way of contacting them. They might not check the user page here since they aren't regular users here. I have a feeling that this is a difference in policy that this user is just unaware of. – Icemandeaf (talk) 04:21, February 9, 2017 (UTC)

@Icemandeaf: When a user is left a message, whether it be on a classic user talk page or a message wall, they get a cross-wiki notification. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 12:30, February 9, 2017 (UTC)

Maybe they don't really understand English? Just trying to give 'em a benefit of a doubt. Maybe we can try leaving a message in Russian? – Icemandeaf (talk) 14:12, February 9, 2017 (UTC)

I second Icemandeaf's comment - it's possible that the user doesn't understand the warning they're receiving. Maybe there's an admin on the Russian TSW that also speaks English, that could translate for us? I'm not sure that leaving this in the hands of a translator program like Google would be best. -- LiR ^{talk · blog · contribs} 15:20, February 9, 2017 (UTC)

To be honest I must second Icemandeaf's comment as well. I was considering translating a message from English to Russian, though like LiR has hinted, using a translator may not be the best practice. I've used a translator in the past many times, and I do remember there being occasions where others have said that it didn't translate particularly well. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 19:21, February 9, 2017 (UTC)

I left Ajay Ghale a note. They seem to know English, since I've seen them translating English articles into Russian on the Russian Sims Wiki. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 20:10, February 12, 2017 (UTC)

Blameitonmyotp

Issue is resolved

User has been able to edit. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 22:01, February 22, 2017 (UTC)

Blameitonmyotp has left a message on my talk page on the Crash Bandicoot Wiki telling me that she has been blocked on the Sims wiki. I checked the block list and from what I can see, it appears that she has been caught in a proxy block that was placed on an IP that she is apparently under.

I'm not very familiar with how proxies work, so I'm unsure what the best course of action would be. I am convinced that she hasn't done anything wrong, in-fact it's pretty clear that she hasn't done anything wrong. Although it's pretty apparent that she wasn't the intended blockee, I haven't had any experience with how proxies work myself, and thus I am unsure how to proceed with this issue. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 04:44, February 22, 2017 (UTC)

The {{Proxyblock}} blocks are targeted at open proxies, which basically allow any user to use the Internet over the proxy server's Internet connection and using the proxy's IP address. These should be blocked on public websites like wikis and forums because they can be used to circumvent blocks and cause disruption.

I'm not 100% convinced that this is a proxy-related block because the only block I can see so far that expires on April 6 is an underage-user block that doesn't have autoblock enabled, so it couldn't possibly affect Blameitonmyotp at all. I've asked the user to provide their Block ID number so we can find out for sure which block they're currently affected by. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 13:48, February 22, 2017 (UTC)

User has been able to upload a file, so that's settled, then. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 22:01, February 22, 2017 (UTC)

Themasterofdenial and C.Syde65

• Themasterofdenial (talk · contribs · editcount · block · modify rights · logs · block log)
• C.Syde65 (talk · contribs · editcount · block · modify rights · logs · block log)

Per the messages left on my talk page, I must say that I am not impressed at all with what happened here, considering that I am indeed very busy in real life and for an administrator to be involved sickens me.

Now, the story goes is that, after a lengthy discussion regarding a block on Themasterofdenial, C.Syde65 archived his talk page. In the original archive was the following message:

::I was not banned from Community Central Chat for back-chatting; I was banned for spamming. That can't carry over to other wikis. 

::In addition, I never brought drama to this wiki, even though you continue to say that I did. All I did was revive an old thread and then restore it after you deleted it. Does that sound blockable to you? Does that sound like bringing any drama from other wikis?

::I also never refused to "drop the stick"; I just restored the thread, seeing its deletion as a unnecessary and as bordering on censorship.

::You even said that you only acted harshly because you were annoyed at the time. You even admitted to banning me out of pure anger and not because I was causing disruption. 

::This is not how an admin should be allowed to behave. This should not be tolerated. This is why we need a new justice system. This is why we need a punishment system built on collaboration and different perspectives.

::[[User:Themasterofdenial|Themasterofdenial]] ([[User talk:Themasterofdenial|talk]]) 07:09, August 17, 2016 (UTC)

This message was later overridden by another edit. Normally, users are free to remove messages from their talk page, but in general archive pages are not supposed to be edited except for maintenance purposes. There is no agreed-upon policy or guideline regarding removing messages from one's own talk page archives.

Re. Themasterofdenial

Themasterofdenial's history on The Sims Wiki is generally spotty, although this edit seems to speak for itself. While most of this user's activity appears on other wikis, it should be noted that they have been banned, as of this writing, three times from Community Central Chat [5], with the most recent being only two months ago. Other than that, I don't see an awful lot of red flags on other wikis. I do not have any chat logs of this user so I cannot make any definitive statements about their behaviour in that regard, however.

Re. C.Syde65

C.Syde65, while not having expressly violated any policies, have shown to be a poor recipient of criticism and other comments that may negatively portray him. In the past he had archived talk page messages way too early (per this edit). Despite lengthy discussions with C.Syde65, he still seems to dislike negative comments, and this recent act of removing such a comment from their talk page archive and then fully-protecting it as an involved administrator is likely to be seen as a potential misuse of the admin bit (See Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Administrators#Involved_admins and Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Administrators#Misuse_of_administrative_tools). While there is nothing wrong with protecting talk page archives, all page protections must be done with good reason, and should never be used to gain an advantage over a dispute where the administrator is involved in. As Wikipedia:WP:UPROT states: User pages and subpages can be protected upon a simple request from the user, as long as a need exists—pages in userspace should not be automatically or pre-emptively protected. Requests for protection specifically at uncommon levels (such as template protection) may be granted if the user has expressed a genuine and realistic need. I don't see such a "need" for page protection here, except the fact that C.Syde did not engage in discussion at all with Themasterofdenial, which is completely unacceptable for any editor, let alone an administrator.

Suggested resolutions

I disagree with blocking Themasterofdenial again, since I don't see any evidence of discussion with the user regarding this situation. However, this has been an ongoing pattern for C.Syde even before his RFA, and it is time we got serious about this.

I will leave it open to the rest of the administrative body to decide on possible remedies for this situation.

If I appear to have been harsh and/or frustrated, I apologize in advance: this is the start of a very busy month at school for me, and I am not in any mood to serve as an "Arbitrator" of any kind. To have to deal with this situation involving an administrator further wears my already thin level of patience.

—k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 16:43, March 6, 2017 (UTC)

Comment moved to The Sims Wiki:Administrators' noticeboard. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 19:51, March 6, 2017 (UTC)

For the record, I've also noticed this. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 11:22, March 10, 2017 (UTC)

Suggested remedies

As suggested by LostInRiverview, here are the proposed remedies to resolve this situation:

1. Themasterofdenial is to cease harassment of C.Syde65 or any other users while on The Sims Wiki, including in Wiki Chat. Themasterofdenial may engage with C.Syde65 only if they have legitimate reason to do so. If Themasterofdenial is found to have engaged in further harassment of any users on The Sims Wiki, they will be blocked from editing; subsequent harassment after block expiration will be met with escalating blocks.
2. Issues between C.Syde65 and Themasterofdenial on other wikis or in other places on the internet are not to spill over into The Sims Wiki. We cannot police how C.Syde65 and Themasterofdenial behave outside TSW, but they are both urged to steer clear of each other and avoid conflict with one another.
3. C.Syde65 is free to edit his talk page and archives as he sees fit, subject to relevant wiki policies. Users are strongly discouraged from editing another user's talk page archives for non-minor purposes unless they obtain permission from the archive owner first.
4. C.Syde65 will apologize for his misuse of administrator tools and will not misuse his administrative position in the future.

I am supportive of the proposed remedies, and also open to the possibility of rediscussing this matter should harassment or improper use of admin tools continue. I invite other uninvolved administrators to voice their opinion about this. NB: Any administrator that is directly involved with the situation and/or who may have a conflict of interest in this case are expected to recuse. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 17:27, March 9, 2017 (UTC)

Done Since there seems to be no further objections, and since active administrators have supported the remedies, I have gone ahead and applied editing restrictions on Themasterofdenial. The situation will be re-evaluated in about 30 days. Please leave this thread open so that any potential editing restriction breaches can be logged and discussed. This thread can be closed once the user leaves probation and the editing restriction is no longer deemed to be necessary. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 16:59, March 13, 2017 (UTC)

User:Unblock1

Discussion closed

No resolution needed - user has been globally blocked

Unblock 1 (talk · contribs · editcount · block · modify rights · logs · block log) has been blocked. The block reason states that Unblock 1 is a sockpuppet of User:Thesims2pets. I don't want to call k6ka's judgment into question, but I was wondering if he'd be able to elaborate a little bit on the evidence that caused him to come to this conclusion. It should be noted that Unblock 1 has requested an unblock, so this is a somewhat time-sensitive issue. -- LiR ^{talk · blog · contribs} 20:00, April 1, 2017 (UTC)

I was going to post here shortly after the block, but I had to run shortly afterwards.

The biggest factor that led me to block was a ban from Community Central chat. Thesims2pets and their socks have been banned from CC Chat before, and while I don't have any logs of the incident, I suspected that, given their username, this was plausible evidence.

Secondly, their edits on The Sims Answers Wiki is similar that of another sockpuppet, such as marking pages for deletion and answering questions with short, poorly written responses.

Thirdly, some of their behaviours on other wikis match those of previously blocked sockpuppets, such as the use of emojis, random uses of "WTF", and vandalizing other wikis by creating tons of single letter or poorly written pages (The latter has been deleted and blocked by a VSTF member).

Fourthly, and I acknowledge that this came after the block, but their latest unblock request, aside from being inadequate, denies knowing anything about Thesims2pets and forgets to sign their post, much like Pets1 did here.

I have some other evidence which I am happy to share with any interested administrator privately over IRC. I can also elaborate more on the given evidence above over IRC as well. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 21:04, April 1, 2017 (UTC)

It should also be noted that the user has now been globally blocked. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 23:06, April 1, 2017 (UTC)

Given that the user is globally blocked, this block is a moot point. -- LiR ^{talk · blog · contribs} 21:02, April 2, 2017 (UTC)

Ansett4Sims and RomerJon17

These two accounts are apparently both owned by the same user, and they have both received messages on previous occasions asking them to stick to only one account. While the user who owns the accounts does not appear to be acting in bad faith, they have not directly responded to the messages that they have been given, although they did log in to their other account to edit their user-page after I undid their latest edit to the user-page owned by their other account. I'm not quite sure what the best thing would be to do in this situation as I don't recall ever being involved in a situation regarding two accounts being owned by one user that isn't acting in bad faith. Which is why I brought the issue here. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 12:09, May 26, 2017 (UTC)

It may be worth talking to them again about their use of multiple accounts, but they definitely aren't abusing them. Thing is, though, we still have Forum:Multiple account policy that's still open and awaiting further input; I think having that policy set up will help us to act more reasonably in circumstances like this. The use of multiple accounts for illegitimate reasons is not at all unfamiliar to us, I'm sure, but not the good faith (or at least, non-bad faith) use of them. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 13:52, May 26, 2017 (UTC)

Unblock request on User talk:يمارس الجنس مع الشواذ

I encourage administrators to review their edit filter log before making a decision. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 18:08, August 4, 2017 (UTC)

To be honest, I think they shouldn't be unblocked. The edits they tried to make after they tried to make portable info-boxes that triggered the abuse filter shows me that they aren't willing to build the Sims wiki. It seems clear to be that they aren't being truthful when they say that they are trying to convert info-boxes to be portable. It seems like a load of nonsense to me, since they shouldn't be doing questionable things if they're trying to be helpful by trying to convert non-portable info-boxes. And that they need to stop doing things that trigger the abuse filter if they want other users to trust them. I strongly oppose this user getting unblocked, and that they should wait their block out if they want to be given a chance to improve. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 22:21, August 4, 2017 (UTC)

User:Amazon Fire TV Stick

Hello friends. I wish my first action on this wiki in more than a year could have been on a more positive note, but I'm afraid it is not. As I am sure all administrators will be aware the moment they next log on, this user has issued a threat—entitled "Things Are About To Change Around Here" (sic)—to all admins, claiming that they are a member of Fandom Staff (they are not—I checked the Community Staff page just to make sure). They also created this blog post. Based on the language this user has used, they may be a sock attempting to take revenge on the administrative team, but I can't be sure, since I've been gone for quite some time.

Anyway, since I appeared to be the only admin active at this hour, I immediately moved to block this user, to prevent them from inflicting any lasting damage on the wiki or its community. Do with that what you will, I suppose. — THE TIM TAM IS MY SPIRIT ANIMAL ^{(TSW • AH • MGW • Contribs)} 14:43, August 13, 2017 (UTC)

Welcome back, Tim. Sorry to hear that your first admin action on the wiki in a long while was to deal with this long-time sockpuppet. I have bot rollbacked their edits. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 16:10, August 13, 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I would have responded to the issue, had I been awake at the time. Looks like they were able to do quite a bit which can only mean that it was some time before any administrator was around to deal with the issue. It's a long time sock-puppet of a long time troll user that's been causing a lot of trouble over the last couple of years. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 20:43, August 13, 2017 (UTC)

Lock blocked user talk pages?

It seems as though our perennial friend has taken to posting on the talk pages of users that have been indefinitely blocked from editing The Sims Wiki. C.Syde has protected a few of these talk pages from further editing, and it seems like it's probably a good idea to just protect them all, to close off that particular avenue of annoyance. I'd propose that we only add protection (in this case, full protection) to talk pages of users that are indef blocked and have no right to appeal the block, with a particular focus on locking the talk pages of particularly notorious users first. I'm generally not in favor of excessive page protection or in prophylactic protection, but in this case I think the harm that could be done in protecting these pages is nonexistent - there's simply no reason why a non-admin would ever need to edit the page of a permanently blocked user, especially in such cases where the user him/herself isn't allowed to edit his/her own talk page.

Thoughts? -- LiR ^{talk · blog · contribs} 23:32, August 26, 2017 (UTC)

Addition: As an afterthought, it might also be useful to extend semi-protection to indefinitely-blocked or long-term blocked user talk pages as well. It stands to reason that if we limit his ability to edit permablocked talk pages, he'll simply move onto posting on the pages of those users who can still appeal blocks. In these cases, I'd advocate for a semi-protection, so that way the blocked user can still request unblock as long as they retain talk page editing privileges. Thoughts on this as well? -- LiR ^{talk · blog · contribs} 23:36, August 26, 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good. I could have protected all the ones that were being modified by non-admins, but I just wasn't entirely sure how uncontroversial it would be. I knew it would be justified to protect the ones of the indefinitely blocked users with globally disabled accounts since they wouldn't be able to request an unblock anyway, which is why I protected the talk pages of those particular users, since as far as I could see, there was no reason why a non-admin should be editing them, especially not if they're trolling. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 23:38, August 26, 2017 (UTC)

I support indefinitely fully protecting the user talk pages of users if:

1. The user is indefinitely blocked with no talk page access, and is a sockpuppet account (Through which any appeals must be made through the main account); OR
2. The user's account has been globally disabled (Not globally blocked) for over 30 days (After that point, disabled accounts cannot be recovered). The talk page should be replaced with a message stating that the account has been disabled and that all previous messages can be found in the page history (If the user had an archive system in place, all the messages on the talk page should be archived in that fashion) (We should probably create a template for this purpose).

Other people's talk pages can be semi-protected, either upon request or at an admin's discretion, but I would not recommend indefinitely protecting them, since that also locks out legitimate IP users from being able to contact the user. During the time such a talk page is protected, users affected by the protection should be encouraged to contact the user via alternative means, such as on Community Central (In my case I let users email me as well).

Also, I don't think it should be a requirement to protect the talk pages of indefinitely blocked or globally disabled accounts; admins should choose to protect (or not to protect) such pages at their (hopefully wise) discretion. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 00:22, August 27, 2017 (UTC)

LostInRiverview alt accounts

Yesterday I created a deliberate sockpuppet account at User:LostInRiverview3. My initial plan was to create multiple accounts, to reserve those names so that no one else could create accounts to imitate me. After creating the first one though, I realized that this was probably an incorrect course of action, but the cat was already out of the bag. Today, our old friend created "LostInRiverview 4" and attempted to imitate me. I want to post here and state clearly that I will not create any more alternate accounts at any time. Any accounts created on The Sims Wiki that appear to be me are not me. -- LiR ^{talk · blog · contribs} 18:37, August 28, 2017 (UTC)

Yeah. Thanks for the heads up. Even though it already seemed clear which of these two accounts was the real impostor, partly because the first account didn't show any signs of trolling, whereas the second account did. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 21:07, August 28, 2017 (UTC)

I also logged into this account immediately after creating the alt account and edited the alt account userpage to confirm that it was attached to me. I also blocked the alt account indefinitely as per the wiki's "one person, one active account" policy. But I think it hindsight it was a mistake to even create the alt in the first place. I wouldn't encourage others to take a similar approach to solving the problem. -- LiR ^{talk · blog · contribs} 21:13, August 28, 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, neither would I to be honest. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 21:15, August 28, 2017 (UTC)

Mass-rollbacking disruptive edits

Recently we've had a rash of mass disruptive edits being made by a well known long term abuser (LTA). While the most we can do at the moment is to revert and block, the edits—both by the LTA and the reverter—flood recent changes dramatically, making it difficult to use.

To resolve this problem, I would like to introduce to administrators who may not be aware of this trick already a feature in MediaWiki that allows administrators to hide mass disruptive edits from recent changes.

To do this with any additional accounts created by the LTA (And with potential future ones):

1. Open the contributions page for the user you wish to revert edits by.
2. Add ?bot=1 to the end of the URL (e.g. http://sims.wikia.com/wiki/Special:Contributions/Example?bot=1. If the URL already has a question mark in it, or if it has index.php in it, use &bot=1: http://sims.wikia.com/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Example&bot=1). Hit Enter.

Now all of the rollback links on the page should have &bot=1 suffixed on them. When you click on them (If there are lots of edits, you can open them in a new tab), the edit you make will be marked as a bot edit on the recent changes table and will thus be hidden by default (Unless you click on the "Show bot edits" option in recent changes). Additionally, the software will give the edit of the user you reverted the bot edit flag as well, so both edits will be hidden from recent changes by default. This does not hide the edit from user contributions pages or from the page history (The bot edit flag property is only used by recent changes and watchlists), and the edit is not removed from the database.
You'd want to use this trick when reverting a malicious user's clearly bad faith edits, especially if they had made a large quantity of such edits. Use this sparingly: don't use it for most cases of run-of-the-mill vandalism or for edits you merely disagree with. Subject to the standard restrictions on rollback.

Additionally, if you use a tool like WHAM to mass rollback edits, it is compatible with this trick; just add ?bot=1/&bot=1 to the URL before you click on the links in WHAM. By the way, this doesn't affect any edits you do not revert using rollback, and it won't affect log entries.

Further reading

• Help:Reverting § Can I hide flood vandalism reverts from recent changes?
• Manual:Parameters to index.php § Cite Note Rollback 4
• Help:Reverting § Bot rollback

—k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 00:12, August 29, 2017 (UTC)

I'm very familiar with the existence of this trick, however I've never actually used it myself, since I don't believe I've ever been in a situation where it was necessary to do so, and in any case, I've never been fully confident that I understood or knew exactly how to do it. I guess it's something I should play around with on a wiki or test page that no one cares what I do on / with it. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 02:09, August 29, 2017 (UTC)

Site-wide message for Volunteer Curators

Sannse recently posted on my talk page asking if a site-wide message could be created bringing attention to this blog post about Volunteer Curators. The blog post and its content do not affect The Sims Wiki or its content; it's more of something on Wikia/Fandom's end.

As this isn't a decision for one administrator to make, I'm posting it here to query other administrators for opinions and consensus. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 23:37, September 18, 2017 (UTC)

My overall reaction is meh. On the one hand, FANDikia is free to do whatever they want with the Fandom blog platform, and if anyone on TSW wants to participate, I encourage them to do so and I wish them luck. But on the other hand, the amount of FANDOM spam I've been bombarded with, especially messages about things I couldn't care less about, especially messages about different game/movie/TV franchises whose wikis I've never visited, let alone edited... has really turned me off to the whole idea of their advertisements. And now they want us to do the dirty work for them? o_O

So yeah, I don't have a problem with the Fandom blog thing, but I don't think we need to do any sort of advertisement here to assist them. -- LiR ^{talk · blog · contribs} 23:48, September 18, 2017 (UTC)

I think I'd say the same to be honest. I don't really care much for the FANDOM side of things, since I didn't sign up for that. I'm not really bothered by it either. I just ignore the FANDOM side of things, in favour of the Wikia side, because as far as I'm concerned, it's still the same network that I joined back in December 2013, which I browsed since late 2008. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 12:12, September 19, 2017 (UTC)

"Editing What Links Here is better than redirects"?

Issue is resolved

Since 2010, admins who attempt to move a page are told on the "Leave a redirect behind" option that "Editing What Links Here is better than using redirects". The system message that governs the text displayed here is located at MediaWiki:Move-leave-redirect.

I want to call this principle into question. Why would leaving redirects be worse than having to go through "What Links Here" and change all of the links to point to the new title? Non-admins don't have this option, and quite a good number of page moves are done by non-admins, so a redirect winds up being left behind. In most cases, the redirect does no harm and is still being linked to in many places around the wiki, and the redirect title is not implausible to the point that it would be considered for deletion. Secondly, if other sites have pointed to the old title, moving a page and deleting the redirect will cause those third-party links to the wiki to break. Thirdly, there's no real reason to having to "fix" links to redirects if they are not broken, as Wikipedia:Redirect § Do not "fix" links to redirects that are not broken says.

I propose either changing the text at MediaWiki:Move-leave-redirect or deleting it entirely. Changing the text requires that a ticket be sent to Staff via Special:Contact. Deleting it will restore the default MediaWiki system message text (which is just "Leave a redirect behind"). I'm leaning towards just deleting the page outright, since I simply can't see why it is "better" to expend the effort to change links to the new title when that's what redirects are for. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 16:38, January 24, 2019 (UTC)

I'd support just deleting it outright and going with the default language. -- LostInRiverview ^{talk · blog · contribs} 19:37, January 24, 2019 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and just deleted it boldly. It will now show the default MediaWiki message. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 22:07, February 1, 2019 (UTC)

Unregistered user edit warring and insertion of generic bio

I'm sure by now all the active admins (as well as the content mods) have noticed a repeated string of edits from an unregistered user that goes against established community consensus regarding the insertion of generic bios (i.e. "Hi! My name is <name>!") on articles. This person has on multiple occasions resorted to edit warring in order to keep the generic bios present. Several users have warned this person to cease edit warring, but it has continued. Blocks have been issued, but on now two occasions, the user has edited from a different IP address to evade the block. After these blocks have expired, the person has returned to inserting the generic bios and has continued to engage in edit warring (or behavior that is borderline edit warring behavior). All attempts to contact this person appear to have been unsuccessful.

I want to open this issue up to the broader admin team in order to ensure that we are all on the same page regarding how we wish to proceed. I have taken the action of blocking the second IP address which was evading the block placed on the first. I have also reset the block timer on the first IP address block; both blocks are set to expire in one week. I would be comfortable with extending the blocks further for both IP addresses given the apparent willful intent to evade the first block. I would also like to hear what others have to say regarding how we wish to proceed, assuming this person returns and resumes their previous behavior.

My gut says that they are acting in good faith but are unaware that they are violating policy in conducing their actions. Couple this with the fact that they have made other good edits to the wiki, and that leads me to say that I would be hesitant to issue a longer-term block against them if it could be avoided. While the addition of the generic bios (and refusal to acknowledge precedent or to cease edit warring) is concerning and ultimately not acceptable, the user seems to be quite prolific in their desire to make improvements. That said, edit warring is a violation of official policy and it would be improper to simply ignore that behavior.

One final note: on the Discord server, I suggested to k6ka that we (meaning he) might implement an abuse filter to catch additional insertions of the generic bio on articles in the main namespace. I would be curious to see k6's, and everyone else's, response to that idea. -- LostInRiverview ^{talk · blog · contribs} 05:38, April 16, 2019 (UTC)

I believe abuse filter is an ideal solution because that way, it can prevent further edit warring while allowing the user to continue their good-faith contribution. This may allow us to avoid repeated banning, which would be unnecessary if abuse filter can prevent the edit in the first place. Let's assume it wouldn't cause further disruptive behavior from the user. Nikel _Talk 06:17, April 16, 2019 (UTC)

Well I wouldn't have thought of setting up the abuse filter to prevent further attempts to insert the generic biographies to articles. I guess because I was too busy waiting to see whether they'd ever stop trying to add the generic biographies, and then block them if they kept trying to add them.

But I wouldn't be opposed to setting up a filter to catch any further attempts to add the generic biographies, or to edit war on specific pages. But then I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to the idea of warning them not to keep trying to do the things that the abuse filter would prevent them from doing either. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 06:33, April 16, 2019 (UTC)

My reasoning for the abuse filter is that the warnings and the blocks don't seem to be a deterrent to adding the biographies, as if the person either doesn't know they have a talk page or simply doesn't understand what we're asking of them. Implementing an abuse filter to stop the generic bio seems to be a good solution for stopping the problem edits in the first place, before the person can resort to warring. I will say as well, my issue isn't necessarily with the fact that they are adding the generic bio, but that they are edit warring. I have a vague recollection that the community at some point made the conscious decision not to include generic bios, but I do not have definite proof that the topic was ever discussed. So, I don't think the addition of generic bios is valid grounds to block them (barring some proof of community consensus)... but edit warring is a blockable action, as is block evasion; those are the grounds on which I support blocking this user. Of course, if the community never actually agreed to not use/to remove generic bios, then it would also be improper to set up an abuse filter to stop their inclusion.

So, to clarify my position a bit: if it can be demonstrated that the community has established a precedent of not including generic biographies, then I would propose implementing an abuse filter to catch the generic bio, and would support additional blocks if this user continues to add them in defiance of consensus. But, if the community has not established that standard, then I think a community discussion and consensus would be necessary before taking action against this user for the addition of said generic bios, or before implementing an abuse filter to stop it. All that notwithstanding, edit warring and block evasion are still blockable offenses. -- LostInRiverview ^{talk · blog · contribs} 06:52, April 16, 2019 (UTC)

I don't actually recall there ever being a discussion regarding not including generic biographies into Sim articles. All I remember was that in very late 2013 or very early 2014, removing the generic biographies became a practice, and not seeing anything wrong with the practice myself, I stuck to that practice as well.

I definitely would be opposed to the practice being undone though, considering that the said Sims don't have those generic biographies in the game. So they technically shouldn't have them in the articles either. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 09:37, April 16, 2019 (UTC)

New consensus was thus formed by new practice. No discussion is required for a new consensus to be established; if everyone else follows suit, it can be assumed that the consensus was changed. Anyways, I've set up filter 47 to catch these kinds of edits. Testing showed that it catches the edits I want it to catch. I've set it to warn only for now (since the outdated version of the extension Wikia uses doesn't allow for a custom disallow message) in the hopes that this will get the message across. If they keep adding it (and the filter log will tell), then I'll tighten the settings. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 11:57, April 16, 2019 (UTC)

This is only tangentially related, but we ought to devise some way of tracking ideas that have received either formal consensus or have been adopted into widespread practice. The reason I bring this up is because it is difficult to enforce a particular rule if there is no way to demonstrate definitively that a rule exists. There might also be disagreement about whether a consensus or standard truly exists if said standard isn't "officially" adopted by way of a community discussion. I don't disagree with the fact that some practices are standard enough to enforce despite having no formal discussion to implement them, but it would be useful (especially for new editors who will likely be unfamiliar with our practices) to have these standards written down somewhere. LostInRiverview ^{talk · blog · contribs} 22:35, April 16, 2019 (UTC)

Editing restriction on DrakonoSkerdikas

Administrators who have been monitoring the #administrative_chat channel on Discord may know about this already, but I will explain for those who don't use Discord.

DrakonoSkerdikas (talk · contribs · editcount · block · modify rights · logs · block log) has been editing since 2014. Their activity has increased over the past year and they've had a bit of a history, including counterproductive edit warring and failing to use the preview button in order to check over their own work. They've also been extremely unresponsive and unwilling to act on or even notice messages left on their talk page, as evidenced here where their edit duplicated an entire article, and despite the fact that I left them a message on their talk page, they somehow insisted I didn't leave them a response. 74.198.131.130 has gotten into quite a bit of dust with them, and I think the bulk of it (given my own frustrations with Drakono) comes down to the overall low quality of work in their edits, which may in turn be explained by their lack of patience and rational judgement in their actions (as evidenced by a frivolous page move done without consensus or without heed to standard practice, as well as forum threads making irrational proposals such as shutting down fanon creation because "I don't think I can word out my reason properly"). Many of their edits are riddled with typos (such as this and this), and are often filled with difficult-to-understand sentences that make it a pain for copyeditors trying to figure out what he is trying to say. They've also been known to have a bit of an odd attitude, such as this threatening message (combined with the edit war mentioned above, shows that they are poor with conflict resolution) or just wasting people's time. They have also been banned indefinitely from the Discord server for having an intolerable attitude towards other users and to the moderation team, having also been kicked previously for linking to NSFW material.

I recently left the user a message informing them of their low quality edits and advising them to ask for help, and telling them that some users have suggested that they draft their edits in their user sandbox and having other people review them before they are published, due to the exceedingly low quality of edits they are making. I provided them a long list of screenshots showing them just some of the glaring issues in their edits ([6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]). They responded with this, as well as this. They clearly have seen my message and the errors I've pointed out in their edits, yet they still managed to make this edit on Telephone, with the glaring errors highlighted here. At this point, I started writing this thread, because it's become clear that they are simply not listening. I can't imagine why it would be necessary to have to clean up after someone who's been here for five years.

Drakono is, I believe, a good faith editor as they have made constructive edits in the past. Good faith, however, doesn't excuse their failing to heed to advice. Since they do not seem interested in drafting their edits beforehand, it is starting to become necessary to impose an editing restriction on them in order to require them to draft their edits and have them reviewed. LostInRiverview has suggested requiring them to draft and explain their changes on talk pages before they can be published. We do not have a formal edit request system the same way Wikipedia does, but we can adopt this approach. In this system, Drakono would be:

• prohibited from making edits on his own to articles (unless those changes are obviously uncontroversial and wouldn't require checking, such as reversion of vandalism)
• required to either 1) draft his changes and propose them on the talk page for review; or 2) explain his changes on the talk page in a "please change X to Y" format

I understand English is not their first language, but that still doesn't excuse the recurring pattern of problematic edits despite numerous messages. They have also not reached out to ask for grammar assistance, which strikes me as odd given how they are clearly aware their edits are of low quality. To quote him: I do know my edits have been causing trouble because right after editing I think to myself my edits end up looking like garbage. I'm not in the mood to be editing with an editor that knows their edits are problematic but doesn't fix them himself and expects others to clean up after them, rather than fixing their mistakes and improving so that others don't have to be cleaning up after them. But if this is the attitude Drakono is adopting, then the two options I can think of right now are: 1) block them so they can't edit; or 2) have their edits be reviewed first so that at least their low quality edits aren't presented to readers. Option one is a bit nuclear and should probably only be used if option two doesn't work out, or if Drakono breaches the ER (as is standard practice for violating an ER).

Thoughts? —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 00:15, July 31, 2019 (UTC)

*Sigh* I know I was the one that suggested this idea, but I was really hoping that we wouldn't have to resort to actually doing it. I think that, as a whole, we try to be accommodating to users who are new and inexperienced, users who may not be totally fluent in English, and users who don't fully understand the way our wiki works. We offer help and guidance for those who are willing to put the effort into improving their edits. The big problem with Drakono isn't that his edits are often/usually of poor quality, but the fact that he's aware of it, persists in making them anyways, and seems resistant to improvement. There can be quite a lot of leeway given to well-intentioned users who just don't "get it" at first, but we have given Drakono a lot of leeway and he still is either unwilling or unable to meet the general standards that we'd expect long-time editors to meet. I really dislike that we have to resort to imposing an edit restriction in order to address this problem; I feel that this may have the unintended effect of pushing Drakono off the project, which is something I would like to avoid if at all possible. But, I think there's a limit to how much screwing-up we can tolerate before we say "enough." So, all that said, I must reluctantly support the imposition of editing restrictions. -- LostInRiverview ^{talk · blog · contribs} 01:48, July 31, 2019 (UTC)

I haven't had much time to weigh in on things recently, since I've been busy with some of my personal projects recently. But I've obviously seen the topic brought up in #administrative_chat and therefore I knew that an editing restriction proposal was on the way.

I personally would agree that placing an editing restriction on Drakono would be the best way to go, to see if it has any effect on their behaviour. If not, then we can take any appropriate actions from there.

In case my response is lacking in sufficient detail, it's because I don't have any issues with the current proposal, and therefore I haven't really got anything new to add. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 02:04, July 31, 2019 (UTC)

Given what I've seen so far of Drakono's behaviour, I believe it's gotten to a level where an editing restriction is necessary. Like k6 said above, we have given them many chances to improve themselves, and they have ignored or perhaps even stubbornly refused to heed advice. They have frankly exhausted any goodwill I may have felt for them, and I haven't even been directly involved with this incident. I therefore support the imposition of an editing restriction on this user. — THE TIM TAM IS MY SPIRIT ANIMAL ^{(TSW • AH • MGW • Contribs)} 01:11, August 1, 2019 (UTC)

Enactment

The ER is now in effect and the user has been notified. Appeal can be made on the admins' noticeboard. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 22:15, September 6, 2019 (UTC)