The Sims Wiki

The Sims Wiki talk:Admin Portal: Difference between revisions

Project page Discussion

The Sims Wiki talk:Admin Portal (edit)

Revision as of 22:15, 6 September 2019

21,279 bytes removed ,  4 years ago
→‎Editing restriction on DrakonoSkerdikas
VisualWikitext
imported>LostInRiverview
imported>K6ka
 
(24 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown)
Line 1:
{{Community-nav}}
{{Shortcut|TSW:APTP}}{{clr}}
{{Archive navigation|'''Resolved discussions by year'''<br/> [[The Sims Wiki talk:Admin Portal/resolved discussions 2010|2010]] · [[The Sims Wiki talk:Admin Portal/resolved discussions 2011|2011]] · [[The Sims Wiki talk:Admin Portal/resolved discussions 2012|2012]] · [[The Sims Wiki talk:Admin Portal/resolved discussions 2013|2013]] · [[The Sims Wiki talk:Admin Portal/resolved discussions 2014|2014]]<br/> [[The Sims Wiki talk:Admin Portal/resolved discussions 2015|2015]] · [[The Sims Wiki talk:Admin Portal/resolved discussions 2016|2016]] · [[The Sims Wiki talk:Admin Portal/resolved discussions 2017|2017]] · [[The Sims Wiki talk:Admin Portal/resolved discussions 2018|2018]]}}
This is the '''Admin Portal Talk Page''', abbreviated as the '''APTP'''. This page is used by [[The Sims Wiki:Administrators|administrators]] to discuss administrative action, responsibilities, and tasks.
 
Line 9:
 
__TOC__
 
==Issues editing wiki navigation menu==
{{Closed|nr|2=Width check is ''still'' broken, it would seem. But then again, this thread has been open for ''way'' too long. —[[User:K6ka|'''<span style="color:#0040FF">k6ka</span>''']] <span title="Canadian!" style="color:red">🍁</span> ([[User talk:K6ka|<span style="color:#0080FF">Talk</span>]] · [[Special:Contributions/K6ka|<span style="color:#0B4C5F">Contributions</span>]]) 21:43, November 28, 2016 (UTC)}}
Due to custom css styling on the wiki navigation menu, we are unable to edit the menu. Right now, the style applied to the menu increases the Level 1 menu beyond the maximum width, so that ''even if no changes are made'', the editor warns that the menu is too wide and refuses to let you publish any edits to the menu. I temporarily removed the css style applied to the menu and was then able to successfully make edits to the menu, so that is definitely the culprit here. Knowing that, we have a few options. We could try editing the menu to reduce the width of the level 1 menu, but I don't think that's practical. We could try finding a way to redesign the theme so it doesn't make the menu as wide; it could work, but it would be tedious. We could simply remove the styling from the menu whenever we want to edit the menu, though again it would be tedious. Or we could simply remove the styling from the menu altogether, which would be the simplest solution, but we'd also lose the style that is applied to the menu. -- '''[[User:LostInRiverview|<font color="navy">LostInRiverview</font>]]<sup> [[User_talk:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">talk</font>]] • [[User_blog:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">blog</font>]] • [[Special:Contributions/LostInRiverview|<font color="green">contribs</font>]]</sup>''' 14:29, April 5, 2015 (UTC)
 
:[[MediaWiki:Wiki-navigation]] has a width check when you attempt to save the page. Normally, this width check is supposed to prevent issues with the navbar, such as menus that are too big, so text spills out, or having too many tabs that won't fit. However, this width check is dependent on the web browser and not the actual settings for the wiki. So if your browser happens to supersize the text, tough luck — the width checker will think the tabs won't fit when they do.
 
:There are ways to bypass this width check, however, as mentioned at [[w:Thread:734913]]. Examples include:
 
:* Copying the following code into your personal CSS page:
<pre>
/* Special thanks to User:452 for this! Original taken from http://community.wikia.com/wiki/User:452/global.css?diff=prev&oldid=1343313 */
/* This thing fixes the broken width check in MediaWiki:Wiki-navigation */
.ArticlePreviewInner .WikiHeader li.nav-item a {
/* Because the width check is broken. */
margin: 0;
padding: 0;
}
</pre>
:* Moving [[MediaWiki:Wiki-navigation]] to another title, making the necessary changes, and then moving it back
:*[[Special:Export]] the page, make the changes, and then [[Special:Import]] it again.
:*Using another program to edit the page, such as [[wikipedia:WP:AWB|AutoWikiBrowser]].
 
:Keep in mind that removing the width check also increases the possibility of you messing up the navbar (much like drugs that weaken the immune system reduce the chance of organ rejection after a transplant, but increase the risk of infection). It would probably be best to test changes to the navbar on a test wiki before saving the real thing. --I am [[User:K6ka|'''<span style="color:#0040FF">k6ka</span>''']] [[User talk:K6ka|<span style="color:#0080FF"><sup>Talk to me!</sup></span>]] [[Special:Contributions/K6ka|<span style="color:#0B4C5F"><sub>See what I have done</sub></span>]] 15:32, April 5, 2015 (UTC)
 
==Reduce policy page protection?==
I think we should consider reducing the protection level on our policy pages, down to semi-protection for editing (while maintaining sysop-only levels for page moves).
 
Policies are meant to evolve over time, and aren't meant to be treated as hard and constant rules, at least most of the time. Allowing autoconfirmed users to correct issues on policy pages, and make modifications to those pages if relevant, would help to encourage those policies to evolve over time. Additionally, we have enough admins and rollbackers on the wiki to combat any vandalism that might occur. - '''[[User:LostInRiverview|<font color="navy">LostInRiverview</font>]]<sup> [[User_talk:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">talk</font>]] • [[User_blog:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">blog</font>]] • [[Special:Contributions/LostInRiverview|<font color="green">contribs</font>]]</sup>''' 18:12, May 5, 2015 (UTC)
:I'd be up for this. I don't really see any problems with it. As long as they are autoconfirmed users, and they agree to not vandalise or remove important information from the page, then I see absolutely no problem with it. ~ [[User:Beds|<font color="purple">'''Beds'''</font>]] <sup>([[User_talk:Beds|<font color="#66CDAA">'''talk'''</font>]] - [[User_blog:Beds|<font color="#66CDAA">'''blog'''</font>]])</sup> 19:21, May 5, 2015 (UTC)
::'''Support''' provided that there is a notice added to the top of policy pages that tells users that "Changes made to the policy pages should reflect consensus," much like Wikipedia does. --I am [[User:K6ka|'''<span style="color:#0040FF">k6ka</span>''']] [[User talk:K6ka|<span style="color:#0080FF"><sup>Talk to me!</sup></span>]] [[Special:Contributions/K6ka|<span style="color:#0B4C5F"><sub>See what I have done</sub></span>]] 19:30, May 5, 2015 (UTC)
:::'''Agree''' with K6ka's point. {{t|Policy}} can easily be modified to reflect that language. -- '''[[User:LostInRiverview|<font color="navy">LostInRiverview</font>]]<sup> [[User_talk:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">talk</font>]] • [[User_blog:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">blog</font>]] • [[Special:Contributions/LostInRiverview|<font color="green">contribs</font>]]</sup>''' 19:56, May 5, 2015 (UTC)
::::Any more input? -- '''[[User:LostInRiverview|<font color="navy">LostInRiverview</font>]]<sup> [[User_talk:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">talk</font>]] • [[User_blog:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">blog</font>]] • [[Special:Contributions/LostInRiverview|<font color="green">contribs</font>]]</sup>''' 06:29, June 20, 2015 (UTC)
:::::'''Bump''' --I am [[User:K6ka|'''<span style="color:#0040FF">k6ka</span>''']] [[User talk:K6ka|<span style="color:#0080FF"><sup>Talk to me!</sup></span>]] [[Special:Contributions/K6ka|<span style="color:#0B4C5F"><sub>See what I have done</sub></span>]] 02:28, July 25, 2015 (UTC)
::::::I '''support''' this as well. -- [[User:Icemandeaf|Icemandeaf]] ([[User talk:Icemandeaf|talk]]) 02:33, July 25, 2015 (UTC)
 
'''Weak oppose''', mainly because I am of the opinion that policies are something that should be discussed before changes are written on the slate. I am also of the opinion that our long-standing users are often well informed of the be bold clause of our policy, which already makes our policy more of a loose one than a strict one. However, I am all for allowing registered users to make changes to the policies after all discussions are made. [[User:Mathetesalexandrou|<span style="color:#00CC33">MILK FOR THE UNYUUFEX, </span><span style="color:#00AADD">FLAT CHEST FOR THE CUTENESS THRONE, </span><span style="color:#88AAAA">SKULLS FOR THE SKULL PROBES </span>]] ([[user talk:Mathetesalexandrou]]) 01:03, July 26, 2015 (UTC)
 
:Any controversial edits made to the policy pages that have not been approved by consensus can always be reverted immediately and the user advised to seek discussion to obtain approval from the community. Reducing page protection does not change that fact; even if I decided to amend the policies myself without consensus, I would certainly be reverted. --I am [[User:K6ka|'''<span style="color:#0040FF">k6ka</span>''']] [[User talk:K6ka|<span style="color:#0080FF"><sup>Talk to me!</sup></span>]] [[Special:Contributions/K6ka|<span style="color:#0B4C5F"><sub>See what I have done</sub></span>]] 01:25, July 26, 2015 (UTC)
 
==Topnav menu issues on smaller displays==
It appears as though the wiki navigation menu is displayed incorrectly when the wiki is viewed on a lower resolution, such as on a tablet. Namely, the 'Interaction' tab on the navbar is "wrapped" down to the second line, so it collides with the secondary menu text and makes the Interaction menu inaccessible. Any thoughts as to a possible solution? - '''[[User:LostInRiverview|<font color="navy">LostInRiverview</font>]]<sup> [[User_talk:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">talk</font>]] • [[User_blog:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">blog</font>]] • [[Special:Contributions/LostInRiverview|<font color="green">contribs</font>]]</sup>''' 03:07, June 22, 2015 (UTC)
:Well, technically we've been violating the navigation all along. Under normal circumstances, the current navigation cannot be edited and submitted unless [[The_Sims_Wiki_talk:Development_Portal#MediaWiki:Wiki-navigation_error|we make a workaround]]. It was an odd decision since the navigation looked just fine and all the menus fit pretty well, but I guess it turned out we overlooked this case? Aside from that, I don't have any idea for a solution other than to follow the normal navigation width rule by removing some menus. [[User:Nikel23|'''<span style="color:#007FFF; text-shadow: #ACE5EE 0 4px 4px;">Nikel</span>''']] [[User talk:Nikel23|<span style="color: #30D5C8 ; text-shadow: #00FFEF 0 4px 4px;"><sub>''Talk''</sub></span>]] <sub>–</sub> [[The Sims Wiki:Featured Media/Voting|<span style="color:red ; text-shadow:#E97451 0 4px 4px;"><sub>''Vote!''</sub></span>]] 11:15, June 30, 2015 (UTC)
::Nikel, that seemed to be more of a bug (or at least, a very bad update) on Wikia's end. I say this because it was broken on the latest version of Google Chrome, but I tried using an older version of Chrome (and on Firefox) and it apparently worked fine. The page has a width check that's entirely dependent on the browser, and each browser is different. --I am [[User:K6ka|'''<span style="color:#0040FF">k6ka</span>''']] [[User talk:K6ka|<span style="color:#0080FF"><sup>Talk to me!</sup></span>]] [[Special:Contributions/K6ka|<span style="color:#0B4C5F"><sub>See what I have done</sub></span>]] 12:33, June 30, 2015 (UTC)
 
==Discussing a new approach==
This might seem a bit out of place considering we have (recently) been quite lucky to be free of the most of the repeat sockpuppeters. I hope that this lasts, but my fear is that it is a momentary lull. And, if we assume that the good times will not last, then we assume that there will come a point when the "usual suspects" will return to their ways. I would like for us to agree on a different approach to handing these issues moving forward. Simply put, I think our attitude at present towards sockpuppets and puppet-masters does more harm to the wiki than it mitigates.
 
We've been dealing with a relatively constant onslaught of sock puppets, and that has put us in a warzone mentality. We often block users based solely on their username, without any benefit of the doubt or assumption of good faith, without an honest attempt to perform a CheckUser, and often ''before the user has even made their first edit'' to the wiki. I have argued in private with others that this it is a mistake to react in this way, as it gives the puppeteers exactly what they are looking for. Consider: do you think that a puppet master would create an account that is an obvious sock, unless they intended to be blocked? The natural response to this question would be, "well, if they're knowingly breaking the rules (which they are), then isn't blocking them exactly what we should be doing?" I think that the answer is "no."
 
How would not blocking them solve our problem? Well, for starters, I'm not arguing against all blocks, I'm simply arguing against blocks issued only because of multiple account ownership. What would this do? Consider an example:
 
Let's say that an account named "ILoveTheSims20" is created on The Sims Wiki. Currently, this name rings enough bells to bring about a permanent block, even if ILTS20 doesn't actually make an edit on the wiki. Under this new "doctrine," judgment would be reserved until that user starts to edit. If they make positive edits, then under this idea, they would not be blocked. This is a good thing, since TSW has gained an editor that makes positive contributions. Alternatively, ILTS20 could choose to attack a user or vandalize the wiki, in which case a block dependent on their actions would be justified. Currently, even if we give the benefit of the doubt to a suspected sock in the first place, they're essentially on two-strikes already because we know or strongly suspect a sock; once they do anything to "reveal" themselves, the punishment is swift and permanent. I would argue that we should treat them just as we would any other first-time violator.
 
So to boil this down, a sock is born and can either 1) become a good member, and stay or, 2) be a bad member, at which point our normal warn/block cycle can take over. I should add that this whole concept hinges on one other idea.
 
Indefinite blocks should be '''incredibly rare''', and should almost never be without the choice of appeal. I would argue that we should reform our appeals system to prevent abuse, by mandating that a user cannot appeal for a certain length of time after the beginning of a block. This is because an appeal is not usually used to allege a lack of wrongdoing, it's used to request clemency. We could write in something to the effect that users alleging that a block is unjustified may appeal at once (and provide sufficient proof to that point), but users who simply want to ask for a second chance must wait for an assigned period of time before doing so.
 
By no means do I think what I'm proposing will fix things. But right now I feel as though we need to do something. The warzone mentality I've mentioned before is damaging to the wiki as a whole. We are so apprehensive of new users, and we've grown to doubt even our more established users for fear that they could be colluding with trolls and sock puppeters. We've taken to creating secret wikis, making lists and tracking data, and "sock hunting" against these users. We're allowing these few users to dictate how we administrate the wiki. We're allowing them to orchestrate a game, with us and them as opposing players. Unfortunately I don't think this is a game we can win; they have unlimited extra lives, cheats, and an unending boredom, and they will play the game as long as we continue to play with them. By enacting some reforms and making some changes, I think we can end the game. - '''[[User:LostInRiverview|<font color="navy">LostInRiverview</font>]]<sup> [[User_talk:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">talk</font>]] • [[User_blog:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">blog</font>]] • [[Special:Contributions/LostInRiverview|<font color="green">contribs</font>]]</sup>''' 02:17, August 5, 2015 (UTC)
 
:That has been my own personal policy when dealing with "possible" sockpuppets. Unless I had proof that the user was truly a sockpuppet, I wouldn't issue a block. However, it seemed that vandalism would usually occur before such proof surfaced and would result in a block for vandalism instead. This is probably why I don't issue many blocks. Needless to say, I do agree that this war zone mentality needs to end. I admit that it is because I started getting that mindset that I was hesitant when a brand new user asked me to adopt them. While it is true that I did eventually accept that request, it wouldn't have taken a couple of days to verify that the user was indeed genuine had it not been for that way of thinking. How many new users have been pushed away because we assumed they were wolves in sheep's clothing? -- [[User:Icemandeaf|Icemandeaf]] ([[User talk:Icemandeaf|talk]]) 07:01, August 5, 2015 (UTC)
 
::I wholeheartedly agree with this proposal. At the moment, our judgmental policy on socks makes us seem like some police state ''à la'' Stalin-era USSR. That is most certainly not who we are. We are simply a community of Sims fans ranging from fanatics to casual gamers who come together to compile information and stories surrounding our favourite games. If we want our impression to be just that, we must be more careful when dealing with violations of our by-laws or sockpuppets. As said before, this wiki is not a war zone. This is not a "war on terror". We are not the Bush government. I think I'm going around in circles now, so I'm just going to stop here. —'''[[User:WikiBuilder1147|<font color="green">The</font>]] [[User_talk:WikiBuilder1147|<font color="blue">Tim</font>]] [[User blog:WikiBuilder1147|<font color="lime">Man</font>]]''' <sup>([[w:c:historyfiction:User:WikiBuilder1147|IH]] • [[w:c:galactic-crucibles:User:WikiBuilder1147|GC]] • [[w:c:sims:User:WikiBuilder1147|TSW]] • [[w:c:althistory:User:WikiBuilder1147|AH]] • '''[[Special:Contributions/WikiBuilder1147|<font color="#006400">Contribs</font>]])'''</sup> 09:02, August 5, 2015 (UTC)
:::I do think we have been a bit harsh in our approach, blocking users who have yet to make an edit just based on an assumption appears unwelcoming as well as having the risk of catching someone who wasn't involved in an accidental block. I would prefer CheckUser results instead of the way things are being done at the moment. As for not blocking potential socks who are making constructive edits, I am opposed to this. I feel that it makes a mockery of our ban system, and I could probably go even further in that if we didn't block socks, people could just make a complete mess on one account, make a new one, and start over, which completely removes the point of blocks and I can't see it doing anything but spiraling into chaos and removing user accountability. This goes back to what I said above, though - these socks shouldn't be blocked instantly, and only if we've got enough evidence for a CheckUser which turns up positive. If a banned user makes a sock and doesn't ever get caught, that's something that is beyond our control and I suppose that raises more questions, especially if they become a respected contributor/admin and are found out then. Regardless, yeah, something about the current situation does need to change. {{WHsig|09:48, August 5, 2015 (UTC)}}
::::I'd like to make some comments. First of all, the supposed "blocks without any edits" isn't based solely on username alone. These users showed up on chat first, where they were identified as sockpuppets, usually by disrupting the chat room. Since chat isn't logged, and must be logged manually, I can see why it appears like random users are being blocked for no apparent reason or without solid evidence. Secondly, Wikia seems to be pretty variable on CheckUsers, largely depending on whoever decided to respond to the request. Some many do it without question, others may say that our rationale for requesting a CU isn't sufficient. Also note that CheckUser does not see everything, and someone who uses a proxy server can easily evade any CU. I know some sockpuppets that ''have'' escaped detection via a CheckUser, which is why I'm unwilling to say that a CheckUser is required before a block is issued. --I am [[User:K6ka|'''<span style="color:#0040FF">k6ka</span>''']] [[User talk:K6ka|<span style="color:#0080FF"><sup>Talk to me!</sup></span>]] [[Special:Contributions/K6ka|<span style="color:#0B4C5F"><sub>See what I have done</sub></span>]] 21:53, August 7, 2015 (UTC)
 
:::::I am of the understanding that these username-based potential sockpuppets have indeed turned out to be sockpuppets: I've caught several myself, and one of them were unblocked but eventually re-permabanned. These kind of situation also invalidates the whole "indefinite blocks should be rare" concept, since all those sockpuppets are one person anyways and these indefinite blocks are technically aimed at the few individuals. Should a user named say Corymach28 pop out, this may provoke suspicion, yes. But unless the user is blatantly vandalizing s**t in the Quacks like a Duck manner I'm sure none of us are going to drop a banhammer on that user, much less a permaban. [[User:Mathetesalexandrou|<span style="color:#00CC33">MILK FOR THE UNYUUFEX, </span><span style="color:#00AADD">FLAT CHEST FOR THE CUTENESS THRONE, </span><span style="color:#88AAAA">SKULLS FOR THE SKULL PROBES </span>]] ([[user talk:Mathetesalexandrou]]) 00:29, August 8, 2015 (UTC)
::::::The whole reason I brought this up is because I feel we need to re-evaluate the stance we've held up to now - the stance that says that sock puppetry is a sin punishable by total banishment here and forevermore. The argument I'm making is that if we wouldn't jump to issuing permanent blocks, especially in the case of sock puppets, then we wouldn't have so many disgruntled sock puppeteers trying to get onto the wiki. In other words, we created this monster. I understand the perspective that turning a blind eye to new socks seems like we're acquiescing to them, but I don't see the harm in doing this. If it gives the impression that we're "surrendering" or allowing them to break the rule, why does it matter so long as they continue to abide by our other policies? Why should we be so headstrong in enforcing the sockpuppet policy, even when it means causing damage to the wiki due to the resultant backlash from that enforcement and the issues caused by community distrust? I am not advocating for an open door to all sock puppeteers past and present, especially those who have been the most disruptive and deliberate in their attempts to break our rules, not just the sockpuppet policy itself. But when a user who is blocked on the wiki turns around and creates a sock puppet, we ought to be more forgiving of this. I don't mean we should let it happen, but I do not think that it warrants the reaction that we've given it up to now. That reaction creates an adversarial attitude and makes them more likely to continue misbehaving. Whereas, if we take a different approach with these users, there's a better chance that they will choose to observe the block we issue and accept our rules when they are allowed to return. But this cannot happen if we insist on being "tough on crime" to the extent where we won't look at each case on an individual basis, and this definitely cannot happen if we rely so heavily on indefinite and permanent blocks. - '''[[User:LostInRiverview|<font color="navy">LostInRiverview</font>]]<sup> [[User_talk:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">talk</font>]] • [[User_blog:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">blog</font>]] • [[Special:Contributions/LostInRiverview|<font color="green">contribs</font>]]</sup>''' 00:55, August 8, 2015 (UTC)
:::::::That is a good point: I was for giving ILS5 a chance before we came to a conclusion of "screw it permaban" after another sockpuppetry issue. And yes, I still am of the [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Give 'em enough rope|give people all the chance before landing the banhammer stance]]. However, I'm not seeing any community distrust from our current approach. So while the unblock and rehabilitation part of the policy could definitely see more usage, but I don't think our current approach is unfair. Nonetheless, I'd like to know if some of our permabans on sockpuppets were in fact only due to them being sockpuppets identified by otherwise acceptable behavior that the original has been doing. I am under the understanding that ILS5's socks were largely blocked for trying to create fanon, and turned out mostly legitimate (asides from the underage issue) until the IP vandalism to the Sims3 template. I'd like to know of similar cases occurred. [[User:Mathetesalexandrou|<span style="color:#00CC33">MILK FOR THE UNYUUFEX, </span><span style="color:#00AADD">FLAT CHEST FOR THE CUTENESS THRONE, </span><span style="color:#88AAAA">SKULLS FOR THE SKULL PROBES </span>]] ([[user talk:Mathetesalexandrou]]) 13:59, August 8, 2015 (UTC)
 
==Custom Javascript disabled==
For those not already aware, [http://community.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:890734 due to a security issue], Wikia has disabled all custom javascript on all Wikia wikis, including The Sims Wiki. Fortunately our wiki does not make especially extensive use of JS, but there are a couple features on TSW that use it. The only issue I've encountered so far is the TSW twitter widget, which is JS-based and no longer functions; I've hidden it from the main page sidebar until JS is re-enabled. Does anyone know of other material on TSW that is JS-based? - '''[[User:LostInRiverview|<font color="navy">LostInRiverview</font>]]<sup> [[User_talk:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">talk</font>]] • [[User_blog:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">blog</font>]] • [[Special:Contributions/LostInRiverview|<font color="green">contribs</font>]]</sup>''' 18:25, August 10, 2015 (UTC)
:It now appears as though site-wide css was disabled as well. That is much more significant, especially stylistically. Also, add {{t|Countdown}} to the list of things that no longer work with javascript disabled. - '''[[User:LostInRiverview|<font color="navy">LostInRiverview</font>]]<sup> [[User_talk:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">talk</font>]] • [[User_blog:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">blog</font>]] • [[Special:Contributions/LostInRiverview|<font color="green">contribs</font>]]</sup>''' 18:39, August 10, 2015 (UTC)
::Webchat widget on [[TSW:IRC]] no longer works (although more intelligent users can still use http://webchat.freenode.net/ to connect, or use their own IRC client). All user-enabled gadgets and personal JS/CSS still seems to be working. --I am [[User:K6ka|'''<span style="color:#0040FF">k6ka</span>''']] [[User talk:K6ka|<span style="color:#0080FF"><sup>Talk to me!</sup></span>]] [[Special:Contributions/K6ka|<span style="color:#0B4C5F"><sub>See what I have done</sub></span>]] 23:07, August 10, 2015 (UTC)
:::CSS was disabled for a period of time (less than 30 minutes) as well, soon after js was disabled. According to Rappy on the ##Wikia IRC channel, CSS being disabled was an accident and was not intentional. Add to the list of things that are missing: auto-refresh on various pages, including the Recent Changes list. -- '''[[User:LostInRiverview|<font color="navy">LostInRiverview</font>]]<sup> [[User_talk:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">talk</font>]] • [[User_blog:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">blog</font>]] • [[Special:Contributions/LostInRiverview|<font color="green">contribs</font>]]</sup>''' 00:01, August 11, 2015 (UTC)
::::Alright, I just checked Community Central. Staff have issued an [http://community.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:890734#217 update], stating that javascript will be re-enabled but it (and all other MediaWiki pages except css pages) will be in read-only mode and will not be able to be edited. This is intended to be a stopgap measure. - '''[[User:LostInRiverview|<font color="navy">LostInRiverview</font>]]<sup> [[User_talk:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">talk</font>]] • [[User_blog:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">blog</font>]] • [[Special:Contributions/LostInRiverview|<font color="green">contribs</font>]]</sup>''' 00:05, August 11, 2015 (UTC)
 
----
 
It's been a while so I'll blow the dust off. I've mentioned in the [[User blog:K6ka/The Sims Wiki News - 13th September 2015|latest weekly news blog]]:
 
<span class="inline-quote-talk" style="font-family: Georgia, 'DejaVu Serif', serif; color: #008560;">Additionally, community (site-wide) Javascript will soon change drastically. Wikia is planning to implement a review process for site-wide Javascript. Any new changes made to the community JS files must be approved by a team of Wikia-selected users. Additionally, it will no longer be possible to import Javascript code from the user namespace; some of our scripts does this. We are aware of these changes and appropriate updates to the JS files will be made to ensure our customized scripts will continue to function.</span>
 
AFAIK only one tool is imported from the User namespace — the license adder tool. We'll need to move that into the MediaWiki namespace and then make the necessary modifications in order to continue to use the tool. It also means we'll have to deal with a loss of freedom with our JS. --I am [[User:K6ka|'''<span style="color:#0040FF">k6ka</span>''']] [[User talk:K6ka|<span style="color:#0080FF"><sup>Talk to me!</sup></span>]] [[Special:Contributions/K6ka|<span style="color:#0B4C5F"><sub>See what I have done</sub></span>]] 01:46, September 15, 2015 (UTC)
 
==[[User:Sims2Player|Sims2Player]] and [[User:DarkSuicune2000|DarkSuicune2000]]==
{{Closed|res|2=Old news. Users left probation almost a year ago anyway [http://sims.wikia.com/index.php?title=The_Sims_Wiki:Editing_restrictions&diff=prev&oldid=713553] —[[User:K6ka|'''<span style="color:#0040FF">k6ka</span>''']] <span title="Canadian!" style="color:red">🍁</span> ([[User talk:K6ka|<span style="color:#0080FF">Talk</span>]] · [[Special:Contributions/K6ka|<span style="color:#0B4C5F">Contributions</span>]]) 21:41, November 28, 2016 (UTC)}}
For a while now, {{Userlinks|Sims2Player}} and {{userlinks|DarkSuicune2000}} have been [[wikipedia:WP:HOUND|WikiHounding]] each other, showing clear [[wikipedia:WP:Incivility|incivility]] and poor response to criticism from each other. Things such as [http://sims.wikia.com/index.php?title=Fanon_talk:Michelle_Bourne/@comment-DarkSuicune2000-20150824050737/@comment-Sims2Player-20150824062116&oldid=689744] [http://sims.wikia.com/index.php?title=Fanon_talk:Michelle_Bourne/@comment-DarkSuicune2000-20150824050737&oldid=689735] [http://sims.wikia.com/wiki/Fanon_talk:Kermit_Landgraab/@comment-Sims2Player-20150904203300?permalink=151662#comm-151662], an edit war at [http://sims.wikia.com/wiki/Fanon:Kermit_Landgraab?action=history], [http://sims.wikia.com/wiki/Fanon_talk:Vince_Tsvirkunov/@comment-Sims2Player-20150915051344?permalink=152322#comm-152322], [http://sims.wikia.com/wiki/User_talk:DarkSuicune2000?oldid=694405#Your_comment], and most recently, [http://sims.wikia.com/wiki/Fanon_talk:Ezbenzer_Alto/@comment-DarkSuicune2000-20150927160432?permalink=152737#comm-152737]. I reckon it has something to do with Sims2Player not responding well to criticism per their FE nomination [http://sims.wikia.com/wiki/The_Sims_Wiki:Featured_Editor?oldid=695407#Sims2Player here] (and I am perfectly aware of this trait), but this hounding and stalking needs to stop. These two users have a history of not getting along with each other, and while I'm inclined to [[TSW:AGF]] and say they're only trying to improve the wiki, in practice they clash together and it takes the joy out of editing The Sims Wiki, especially when someone's criticism, including constructive, are taken as a [[wikipedia:WP:NPA|personal attack]] by another and a negative response results.
 
Here are the key points I would like to make here:
 
*'''Blocks are to be preventative, not punitive.''' Blocks should only be issued on the mindset that they will prevent and deter unacceptable behavior. Blocks should ''never'' be used as retaliation, to take sides, or to formally punish users.
*'''All editors must engage each other with [[wikipedia:WP:Civility|civility]] and refrain from [[wikipedia:WP:NPA|personal attacks]].''' Editors are expected to [[TSW:AGF|assume good faith]], [[wikipedia:WP:CARCASS|drop old debates]], and [[wikipedia:Wikipedia:Apology|apologize]] if they make a mistake.
*'''Criticism is not an attack.''' Quote from [[wikipedia:Wikipedia:Civility#Incivility|Wikipedia:Civility#Incivility]]: <span class="inline-quote-talk" style="font-family: Georgia, 'DejaVu Serif', serif; color: #008560;">[T]o treat constructive criticism as an attack [is in itself] potentially disruptive</span>. Criticism should '''not''' be viewed as an attack, rather as an opportunity to improve. Users who disagree with the criticism should respond to it in a civil manner, and make no mention or hint towards it being an attack. However, '''criticism can be an attack if it is used or worded improperly.''' "Your cookies are so bad, you must be a failure at life too" is an example of when criticism is an attack. "Your cookies are a bit bland to the taste. I suggest adding some semi-sweet chocolate chips into the dough to make it tastier" is an example of when criticism is ''not'' an attack. Criticism should be focused on the content, not the person who wrote the content.
*'''It is OK to disagree, but it is not OK to assume bad faith.''' As mentioned above, constructive criticism is key to the growing up and development process of all aspects of life. It is OK to disagree with criticism, but it is not OK to think criticism is issued as an attack.
*'''Administrative actions should, again, be preventative, not punitive.''' Per [http://sims.wikia.com/wiki/Fanon_talk:Ezbenzer_Alto/@comment-DarkSuicune2000-20150927160432/@comment-Sims2Player-20150927162900?curid=152744&diff=700440&oldid=700436], I would like to clarify that any administrative action should only be done to prevent further misconduct, and not simply punish the user. If a child was misbehaving and ate too much junk food, it is not appropriate (or even sensible) to ban them from watching TV, as it does not address the issue at all. On the other hand, if an administrator was abusing rollback, removing their administrative status ''is'' a sensible and appropriate action, as rollback is tied to the administrative tools. It is ''not'' sensible to ban the administrator from making fanon or chatting with other users as it does not correlate with the issue at hand.
 
Having said all of this, I propose the following actions be taken:
 
* [[User:DarkSuicune2000|DarkSuicune2000]] and [[User:Sims2Player|Sims2Player]] should refrain from commenting on each other's fanons, and they should not respond to each other's comments on any other fanon. Since this is where most of the disputes are stemming from, I suggest that they should cut it out entirely. This could be listed at [[TSW:ER]], and I believe this restriction need not last any longer than one month.
** This restriction also extends to commenting on fanon elsewhere, such as on chat or via a talk page.
** The two users may continue to communicate with each other, providing that it is civil and well-mannered, on other topics.
* [[User:Sims2Player|Sims2Player]] should be reminded that, although criticism may sometimes feel like a slap in the face, it is not intended to disparage or to anger. They should be reminded about the true meaning of "nothing is perfect," in that things will always garner some form of criticism one way or another. Sims2Player should realize that 1) Criticism is a part of the learning process and that he/she should learn to accept it, 2) It is impossible to please everybody, and 3) Responding to criticism and treating it as an attack is an assumption of [[wikipedia:Wikipedia:Assume bad faith|bad faith]].
* [[User:DarkSuicune2000|DarkSuicune2000]] should be reminded that criticism is helpful, but it should be worded in an appropriate and civil manner. Things like ''"You have a good plot, but you write like a bloody twelve-year old"'' is ''not okay'', but ''"I think your plot is solid, but there are a number of sentences that could be rewritten in prose; for instance, there are a number of sentence fragments..."'' is an example of good criticism.
 
To be clear, I am '''not''' proposing:
 
* Blocking. Both of these users are not focusing all their energy and attention towards these comments, and are making constructive contributions elsewhere on the wiki. A block should only be used as an absolute last resort when all other methods have failed (And I have confidence in the two parties that a block will never be necessary).
* User privilege removals. Again, these don't address the issue at hand and will do the opposite of a cool-down. Actions should be preventative, not punitive.
 
I would like other administrators to comment on this issue and provide feedback or ask questions. Feel free to suggest changes to these proposals.
 
--I am [[User:K6ka|'''<span style="color:#0040FF">k6ka</span>''']] [[User talk:K6ka|<span style="color:#0080FF"><sup>Talk to me!</sup></span>]] [[Special:Contributions/K6ka|<span style="color:#0B4C5F"><sub>See what I have done</sub></span>]] 18:39, September 27, 2015 (UTC)
:I '''strongly support''' the proposals you've laid out. Although both are quick to deny that a feud exists, I think the evidence here speaks for itself. An issue between two editors is one thing, but it's beginning to spill over and other users are getting involved, further spreading the conflict. It needs to stop now. -- '''[[User:LostInRiverview|<font color="navy">LostInRiverview</font>]]<sup> [[User_talk:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">talk</font>]] • [[User_blog:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">blog</font>]] • [[Special:Contributions/LostInRiverview|<font color="green">contribs</font>]]</sup>''' 15:17, September 28, 2015 (UTC)
::'''Strong support''' - This has gone on for quite a while now, and to be quite honest, it's disrupting the peace, especially when their arguments happen on other user's fanons. This has to be handled quickly and quietly as we don't want others getting involved. However, if both users continue to argue back and forth, then I think we should take more of a firmer action upon them both. It just has to stop. ~ [[User:Beds|<font color="purple">'''Beds'''</font>]] <sup>([[User_talk:Beds|<font color="#66CDAA">'''talk'''</font>]] - [[User_blog:Beds|<font color="#66CDAA">'''blog'''</font>]])</sup> 17:50, September 28, 2015 (UTC)
:::'''Strong support''' for all of the reason previously stated. It is just about to the point where it is getting out of control. -- [[User:Icemandeaf|Icemandeaf]] ([[User talk:Icemandeaf|talk]]) 18:13, September 28, 2015 (UTC)
::::'''Strong support''' - Your proposal is level-headed and sensible to this matter. I believe it would be the best solution to handle it. [[User:Nikel23|'''<span style="color:#007FFF; text-shadow: #ACE5EE 0 4px 4px;">Nikel</span>''']] [[User talk:Nikel23|<span style="color: #30D5C8 ; text-shadow: #00FFEF 0 4px 4px;"><sub>''Talk''</sub></span>]] <sub>–</sub> [[The Sims Wiki:Featured Media/Voting|<span style="color:red ; text-shadow:#E97451 0 4px 4px;"><sub>''Vote!''</sub></span>]] 14:12, September 29, 2015 (UTC)
{{done}} Editing Restrictions have been applied to both users, set to last for a month. At that time, we can re-evaluate their behavior and take additional actions or place the users on ER probation. -- '''[[User:LostInRiverview|<font color="navy">LostInRiverview</font>]]<sup> [[User_talk:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">talk</font>]] • [[User_blog:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">blog</font>]] • [[Special:Contributions/LostInRiverview|<font color="green">contribs</font>]]</sup>''' 02:34, September 30, 2015 (UTC)
 
===Editing restriction breach===
Recently the editing restrictions set above have been breached. [[User:DarkSuicune2000|DarkSuicune2000]] left comments on three fanons by [[User:Sims2Player|Sims2Player]]: [[Fanon:Flower City]], [[Fanon:Michelle Styles]], and [[Fanon:Sef Nkobe]]. While the comments are deemed constructive and civil, they are still a breach of editing restriction, which expires on 3:00 October 30, 2015. It is currently 18:56, October 10, 2015 (UTC).
 
Both users have been notified. Further sanctions may be discussed if the restrictions are breached again. --I am [[User:K6ka|'''<span style="color:#0040FF">k6ka</span>''']] [[User talk:K6ka|<span style="color:#0080FF"><sup>Talk to me!</sup></span>]] [[Special:Contributions/K6ka|<span style="color:#0B4C5F"><sub>See what I have done</sub></span>]] 18:56, October 10, 2015 (UTC)
 
For administrative and logging purposes, the deleted comments are listed here:
 
*[[Fanon talk:Michelle Styles/@comment-DarkSuicune2000-20151010184207/@comment-Sims2Player-20151010184325]]
*[[Fanon talk:Michelle Styles/@comment-DarkSuicune2000-20151010184207]]
*[[Fanon talk:Sef Nkobe/@comment-DarkSuicune2000-20151010184351/@comment-Sims2Player-20151010184558]]
*[[Fanon talk:Sef Nkobe/@comment-DarkSuicune2000-20151010184351]]
*[[Fanon talk:Flower City/@comment-DarkSuicune2000-20151010184550]]
--I am [[User:K6ka|'''<span style="color:#0040FF">k6ka</span>''']] [[User talk:K6ka|<span style="color:#0080FF"><sup>Talk to me!</sup></span>]] [[Special:Contributions/K6ka|<span style="color:#0B4C5F"><sub>See what I have done</sub></span>]] 18:59, October 10, 2015 (UTC)
 
===Editing restriction re-evaluation===
The expiry time for the restrictions (03:00 30 October 2015) has come and gone. At this time, I'd like to invite other administrators that do not have a conflict of interest to evaluate this situation, and determine whether or not the restrictions need to be in place any longer. Also, if there were any breaches in the restrictions that were not spotted and not logged on this page, please bring it up. --I am [[User:K6ka|'''<span style="color:#0040FF">k6ka</span>''']] [[User talk:K6ka|<span style="color:#0080FF"><sup>Talk to me!</sup></span>]] [[Special:Contributions/K6ka|<span style="color:#0B4C5F"><sub>See what I have done</sub></span>]] 12:51, October 31, 2015 (UTC)
:I don't know of any breaches aside from the incident already noted above. I think at this point it would be best to place these users on probation. The restrictions placed on them should be lifted, but if they revert to their previous behavior, the ERs will be immediately re-implemented and they will be given warnings. Though, I should stress that in the case where one of the two parties violates the terms, only the person who has actually violated it should be warned. During the ER period, one of the two users breached the restriction, but both users received the same warning for that action, which is unfair to the second user who did not breach the restriction. It is important to remind both users that engaging in the kind of behavior they were engaging in is harmful, distracting and not permitted, whether or not they have been warned against doing so or have been restricted from doing so. -- '''[[User:LostInRiverview|<span style="color:navy;">LiR</span>]]<sup> [[User_talk:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">talk</font>]] • [[User_blog:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">blog</font>]] • [[Special:Contributions/LostInRiverview|<font color="green">contribs</font>]]</sup>''' 15:36, October 31, 2015 (UTC)
::Placing them on probation seems to be a fairly reasonable suggestion. I'm not saying that the behaviour of either of these users has been 100% since the restrictions were placed. However I've noticed that since the beginning of the editing restriction period, both parties have improved significantly. I agree that the restrictions should be lifted, and should either of them revert to their previous behaviour, the editing restriction should be immediately re-implemented on whichever party violated the terms. Indeed it seems unfair for both parties to receive a warning, if only one of them actually violated the terms. I know that in the past away from the keyboard, I have been warned for doing what the opposing player committed, and it is not a pleasant experience. ― '''[[User:C.Syde65|<font color="maroon">C.Syde</font>]]''' ([[User talk:C.Syde65|<font color="black">talk</font>]] &#124; [[:Special:Contributions/C.Syde65|<font color="black">contribs</font>]]) 08:49, November 1, 2015 (UTC)
:::To clarify, both users were warned because one of them had responded to a comment made by the other user, which was highlighted in the ER. So technically, both users were at fault, one for posting a comment on the other user's fanon, and the other for responding to said comment. --I am [[User:K6ka|'''<span style="color:#0040FF">k6ka</span>''']] [[User talk:K6ka|<span style="color:#0080FF"><sup>Talk to me!</sup></span>]] [[Special:Contributions/K6ka|<span style="color:#0B4C5F"><sub>See what I have done</sub></span>]] 18:12, November 8, 2015 (UTC)
::::If one has received a warning for violating the restriction, then the one who violated should remain on the restriction while the other can be put on probation, granted that they haven't broken any restrictions. It's only fair. ~ [[User:Beds|<font color="purple">'''Beds'''</font>]] <sup>([[User_talk:Beds|<font color="#66CDAA">'''talk'''</font>]] - [[User_blog:Beds|<font color="#66CDAA">'''blog'''</font>]])</sup> 23:56, November 8, 2015 (UTC)
:::::The restriction was violated once, but it appears to have been accidental, and no further breaches of the restriction, as far as I'm aware of, were made. Thus, I don't think an extended restriction is necessary, and both users can go on probation. If they do breach the restriction again, they can always be re-added as needed. --I am [[User:K6ka|'''<span style="color:#0040FF">k6ka</span>''']] [[User talk:K6ka|<span style="color:#0080FF"><sup>Talk to me!</sup></span>]] [[Special:Contributions/K6ka|<span style="color:#0B4C5F"><sub>See what I have done</sub></span>]] 00:02, November 9, 2015 (UTC)
 
==Deletion of [[:Category:Created by TheSimSupply]]==
I find the deletion of [[:Category:Created by TheSimSupply]] to be a bit [[The Sims Wiki:Please don't bite the Newbies|bitey]]. For one thing, the [[User:Funkey Kong|author]] wasn't even notified about the deletion nomination, and it was nominated for deletion through the regular process, not a speedy deletion. [[User:Beds|Beds]] later deleted the category immediately, labelling it "Nonsense", which is intended for pages that are [[wikipedia:WP:Patent nonsense|"patent nonsense"]], something this page was definitely not. Finally, the author seemed to have created the category with the intention of categorizing their own fanon with it. The reverts done by [[User:Sims2Player|Sims2Player]] and [[User:C.Syde65|C.Syde65]] seem to give the impression that we forbid fanon categories, which is not true considering that fanon templates are given category names that the author gets to pick and choose. (Say, for example, [[:Category:Revolution templates]].)
 
I would suggest that the community reconsiders its decision to have this ''de facto'' ban on fanon categories lifted. See [[Forum:Permitting user-created fanon categories]]. --I am [[User:K6ka|'''<span style="color:#0040FF">k6ka</span>''']] [[User talk:K6ka|<span style="color:#0080FF"><sup>Talk to me!</sup></span>]] [[Special:Contributions/K6ka|<span style="color:#0B4C5F"><sub>See what I have done</sub></span>]] 11:34, October 13, 2015 (UTC)
:I posted a response to the sister thread on the CDF, but I'll reply here as well for the sake of administrative housekeeping regarding this category. I would be in support of undeleting this category, assuming that Beds doesn't choose to undelete it by herself. However, since I do not want to override the decision of another administrator, I shall wait for consensus here rather than undeleting it myself. -- '''[[User:LostInRiverview|<span style="color:#337800;">LostInRiverview]] ([[File:Plumbob.png|8px|]] [[The Sims Wiki:Administrators|Administrator]])</span>''' • [[User_talk:LostInRiverview|Contact me here]] • 14:35, October 13, 2015 (UTC)
::I can easily delete the category, and I also plan to personally apologise to the user for causing all of this confusion that I caused them. I'll wait until k6 and other administrators are aware of the mistake before I take action. ~ [[User:Beds|<font color="purple">'''Beds'''</font>]] <sup>([[User_talk:Beds|<font color="#66CDAA">'''talk'''</font>]] - [[User_blog:Beds|<font color="#66CDAA">'''blog'''</font>]])</sup> 15:32, October 13, 2015 (UTC)
:::Since the category has been restored, I was wondering if it were wise to undo those edits [http://sims.wikia.com/wiki/Fanon:Lady_Bigwallet?action=history ] [http://sims.wikia.com/wiki/Fanon:Aluna_Island?action=history ] made by Sims2Player and myself, that removed the said category from the user's fanons? I too do not wish to override any decisions made by others, which is why I've decided to ask here. Normally I'd [[TSW:BOLD|consult this community guideline]], but this is a difficult interpretation. ― '''[[User:C.Syde65|<font color="maroon">C.Syde</font>]]''' ([[User talk:C.Syde65|<font color="black">talk</font>]] &#124; [[:Special:Contributions/C.Syde65|<font color="black">contribs</font>]]) 09:56, October 24, 2015 (UTC)
 
==Spamming comments on user's own fanon==
{{Closed|nlr|2=Old news. —[[User:K6ka|'''<span style="color:#0040FF">k6ka</span>''']] <span title="Canadian!" style="color:red">🍁</span> ([[User talk:K6ka|<span style="color:#0080FF">Talk</span>]] · [[Special:Contributions/K6ka|<span style="color:#0B4C5F">Contributions</span>]]) 21:40, November 28, 2016 (UTC)}}
Recently I've noticed [[User:Wikierzz1122|a user]] has been repeatedly leaving numerous spammy comments on their own fanon articles. In [[Fanon:Alice Gutierrez|one case]], this user left fourteen separate comments (although one of the comments was in reply to comments left by other users). Having so many comments pop up can tend to flood Recent Changes and Wiki Activity, and might be seen as an attempt to advertise for their fanon pages (by making sure their pages consistently appear on RC/WA). Is there anything we'd like to do about this? - '''[[User:LostInRiverview|<span style="color:navy;">LiR</span>]]<sup> [[User_talk:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">talk</font>]] • [[User_blog:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">blog</font>]] • [[Special:Contributions/LostInRiverview|<font color="green">contribs</font>]]</sup>''' 05:04, November 24, 2015 (UTC)
:They've also recently flooded the chat room while I was away from keyboard, and when I returned, I found that they'd spammed the chat with [[:File:TSW Chat 24. 11. 2015.png|this]]. This is the very first time I've ever seen them in chat. When I discovered all the comments they'd spammed into the chat, I left them a warning (not a formal one) via private chat not to spam the chat room. And then they apologised, and said it was time for them to sleep, and they left.
 
:Normally I interpret this user to be a fairly mature and respectable one, but I wouldn't say the same for what I've just seen of them in chat and what you've mentioned above. I personally think a friendly hand written message asking them not to leave spammy comments on their own fanon articles to draw attention to their work would suffice. And then if they continue in this pattern, I'd suggest giving them a handwritten warning. I don't think what they've done recently should be treated with a [[Template:Warning|standardised warning message]]. Not in the mean time at least. ― '''[[User:C.Syde65|<font color="maroon">C.Syde</font>]]''' ([[User talk:C.Syde65|<font color="black">talk</font>]] &#124; [[:Special:Contributions/C.Syde65|<font color="black">contribs</font>]]) 05:48, November 24, 2015 (UTC)
 
::Do not forget [[Wikipedia:Hanlon's razor|Hanlon's razor]]. Chances are, they simply lacked the maturity or didn't think it through properly without actually intending harm. I would suggest monitoring them for a few more days or weeks, and if they persist, then warn them with a hand-written warning. —[[User:K6ka|'''<span style="color:#0040FF">k6ka</span>''']] <span title="Canadian!" style="color:red">🍁</span> ([[User talk:K6ka|<span style="color:#0080FF">Talk</span>]] · [[Special:Contributions/K6ka|<span style="color:#0B4C5F">Contributions</span>]]) 11:45, November 24, 2015 (UTC)
 
==Deletion of Sapphire Moondust's fanon==
Line 579 ⟶ 422:
: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. ― <span style="font-family:'Constantia'; font-weight:bold; font-size:108%;">[[User:C.Syde65|<font color="maroon">C.Syde</font>]]</span> <span style="font-family:'Adobe Garamond Pro'; font-size:108%;">([[User talk:C.Syde65|<font color="black">talk</font>]] | [[:Special:Contributions/C.Syde65|<font color="black">contribs</font>]])</span> 21:07, August 28, 2017 (UTC)
::I also logged into this account immediately after creating the alt account and [http://sims.wikia.com/wiki/User:LostInRiverview3?action=history 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. -- '''[[User:LostInRiverview|<span style="color:navy;">LiR</span>]]<sup> [[User_talk:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">talk</font>]] · [[User_blog:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">blog</font>]] · [[Special:Contributions/LostInRiverview|<font color="green">contribs</font>]]</sup>''' 21:13, August 28, 2017 (UTC)
:::Yeah, neither would I to be honest. ― <span style="font-family:'Constantia'; font-weight:bold; font-size:108%;">[[User:C.Syde65|<font color="maroon">C.Syde</font>]]</span> <span style="font-family:'Adobe Garamond Pro'; font-size:108%;">([[User talk:C.Syde65|<font color="black">talk</font>]] | [[:Special:Contributions/C.Syde65|<font color="black">contribs</font>]])</span> 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):
 
# Open the contributions page for the user you wish to revert edits by.
# Add <code>?bot=1</code> 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 <code>index.php</code> in it, use <code>&bot=1</code>: 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 <code>&bot=1</code> 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.<br />
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 [[The_Sims_Wiki:Rollback#When_can_rollback_be_used.3F|restrictions on rollback]].
 
Additionally, if you use a tool like [[w:c:dev:WHAM|WHAM]] to mass rollback edits, it is compatible with this trick; just add <code>?bot=1</code>/<code>&bot=1</code> 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.3F|Help:Reverting § Can I hide flood vandalism reverts from recent changes?]]
* [[mw:Manual:Parameters_to_index.php#cite_note-rollback-4|Manual:Parameters to index.php § Cite Note Rollback 4]]
* [[m:Help:Reverting#Bot_rollback|Help:Reverting § Bot rollback]]
—[[User:K6ka|'''<span style="color:#0040FF">k6ka</span>''']] <span title="Canadian!" style="color:red">🍁</span> ([[User talk:K6ka|<span style="color:#0080FF">Talk</span>]] · [[Special:Contributions/K6ka|<span style="color:#0B4C5F">Contributions</span>]]) 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. ― <span style="font-family:'Constantia'; font-weight:bold; font-size:108%;">[[User:C.Syde65|<font color="maroon">C.Syde</font>]]</span> <span style="font-family:'Adobe Garamond Pro'; font-size:108%;">([[User talk:C.Syde65|<font color="black">talk</font>]] | [[:Special:Contributions/C.Syde65|<font color="black">contribs</font>]])</span> 02:09, August 29, 2017 (UTC)
 
==Site-wide message for Volunteer Curators==
[[User:Sannse|Sannse]] recently [[Special:Diff/784227/784354|posted]] on my talk page asking if a site-wide message could be created bringing attention to [[User_blog:Sannse/Seeking Volunteer Curators|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. —[[User:K6ka|'''<span style="color:#0040FF">k6ka</span>''']] <span title="Canadian!" style="color:red">🍁</span> ([[User talk:K6ka|<span style="color:#0080FF">Talk</span>]] · [[Special:Contributions/K6ka|<span style="color:#0B4C5F">Contributions</span>]]) 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. -- '''[[User:LostInRiverview|<span style="color:navy;">LiR</span>]]<sup> [[User_talk:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">talk</font>]] · [[User_blog:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">blog</font>]] · [[Special:Contributions/LostInRiverview|<font color="green">contribs</font>]]</sup>''' 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. ― <span style="font-family:'Constantia'; font-weight:bold; font-size:108%;">[[User:C.Syde65|<font color="maroon">C.Syde</font>]]</span> <span style="font-family:'Adobe Garamond Pro'; font-size:108%;">([[User talk:C.Syde65|<font color="black">talk</font>]] | [[:Special:Contributions/C.Syde65|<font color="black">contribs</font>]])</span> 12:12, September 19, 2017 (UTC)
 
=="Editing What Links Here is better than redirects"?==
{{Closed|res}}
Since 2010, admins who attempt to [[Help:Rename|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 [[Special:Log/move|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:Wikipedia:Redirect#Do_not_"fix"_links_to_redirects_that_are_not_broken|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. —[[User:K6ka|'''<span style="color:#0040FF">k6ka</span>''']] <span title="Canadian!" style="color:red">🍁</span> ([[User talk:K6ka|<span style="color:#0080FF">Talk</span>]] · [[Special:Contributions/K6ka|<span style="color:#0B4C5F">Contributions</span>]]) 16:38, January 24, 2019 (UTC)
:I'd support just deleting it outright and going with the default language. -- '''[[User:LostInRiverview|<span style="color:navy;">LostInRiverview</span>]]<sup> [[User_talk:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">talk</font>]] · [[User_blog:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">blog</font>]] · [[Special:Contributions/LostInRiverview|<font color="green">contribs</font>]]</sup>''' 19:37, January 24, 2019 (UTC)
 
 
::I've gone ahead and just deleted it boldly. It will now show the default MediaWiki message. —[[User:K6ka|'''<span style="color:#0040FF">k6ka</span>''']] <span title="Canadian!" style="color:red">🍁</span> ([[User talk:K6ka|<span style="color:#0080FF">Talk</span>]] · [[Special:Contributions/K6ka|<span style="color:#0B4C5F">Contributions</span>]]) 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 [[Special:Contributions/173.11.146.98|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 [[Special:Contributions/73.255.12.204|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 [[User:k6ka|k6ka]] that we (meaning he) might implement an [[Special:AbuseFilter|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. -- '''[[User:LostInRiverview|<span style="color:navy;">LostInRiverview</span>]]<sup> [[User_talk:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">talk</font>]] · [[User_blog:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">blog</font>]] · [[Special:Contributions/LostInRiverview|<font color="green">contribs</font>]]</sup>''' 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. [[User:Nikel23|'''<span style="color:#007FFF; text-shadow: #ACE5EE 0 4px 4px;">Nikel</span>''']] [[User talk:Nikel23|<span style="color: #30D5C8 ; text-shadow: #00FFEF 0 4px 4px;"><sub>''Talk''</sub></span>]] 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. ― <span style="font-family:'Constantia'; font-weight:bold; font-size:108%;">[[User:C.Syde65|<font color="#800020">C.Syde</font>]]</span> <span style="font-family:'Adobe Garamond Pro'; font-size:108%;">([[User talk:C.Syde65|<font color="black">talk</font>]] | [[:Special:Contributions/C.Syde65|<font color="black">contribs</font>]])</span> 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. -- '''[[User:LostInRiverview|<span style="color:navy;">LostInRiverview</span>]]<sup> [[User_talk:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">talk</font>]] · [[User_blog:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">blog</font>]] · [[Special:Contributions/LostInRiverview|<font color="green">contribs</font>]]</sup>''' 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. ― <span style="font-family:'Constantia'; font-weight:bold; font-size:108%;">[[User:C.Syde65|<font color="#800020">C.Syde</font>]]</span> <span style="font-family:'Adobe Garamond Pro'; font-size:108%;">([[User talk:C.Syde65|<font color="black">talk</font>]] | [[:Special:Contributions/C.Syde65|<font color="black">contribs</font>]])</span> 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 [[Special:AbuseFilter/47|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 [[Special:AbuseLog|filter log]] will tell), then I'll tighten the settings. —[[User:K6ka|'''<span style="color:#0040FF">k6ka</span>''']] <span title="Canadian!" style="color:red">🍁</span> ([[User talk:K6ka|<span style="color:#0080FF">Talk</span>]] · [[Special:Contributions/K6ka|<span style="color:#0B4C5F">Contributions</span>]]) 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. '''[[User:LostInRiverview|<span style="color:navy;">LostInRiverview</span>]]<sup> [[User_talk:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">talk</font>]] · [[User_blog:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">blog</font>]] · [[Special:Contributions/LostInRiverview|<font color="green">contribs</font>]]</sup>''' 22:35, April 16, 2019 (UTC)
 
==Editing restriction on [[User:DrakonoSkerdikas|DrakonoSkerdikas]]==
Administrators who have been monitoring the ''#administrative_chat'' channel on [[Project:Discord|Discord]] may know about this already, but I will explain for those who don't use Discord.
 
{{Userlinks|DrakonoSkerdikas}} has been editing since 2014. Their activity has increased over the past year and they've had a bit of a history, including [//sims.wikia.com/index.php?title=Fun&action=history&year=2019&month=3&tagfilter= counterproductive edit warring] and [//sims.wikia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:DrakonoSkerdikas&oldid=887435#Use_the_preview_button 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 [//sims.wikia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:DrakonoSkerdikas&oldid=887435#RE:_Revision 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 [[Special:Diff/875307|didn't leave them a response]]. [[Special:Contributions/74.198.131.130|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 [[Special:Diff/882130|page move]] done without consensus or without heed to [[The Sims Wiki:Spoilers|standard practice]], as well as forum threads making irrational proposals such as [[Forum:*Says something unpopular and controversial:*|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 [[Special:Diff/884432|this]] and [[Special:Diff/885276|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 [[Special:Diff/861702|this threatening message]] (combined with the edit war mentioned above, shows that they are poor with conflict resolution) or just [[Special:Diff/876948|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 [//sims.wikia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:DrakonoSkerdikas&oldid=887435#Issues_with_your_grammar 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 ([https://i.imgur.com/xxwiTcO.png] [https://i.imgur.com/ZkbppXp.png] [https://i.imgur.com/F5SwC8k.png] [https://i.imgur.com/Cwjh05r.png] [https://i.imgur.com/tZ8c8EH.png] [https://i.imgur.com/sRFuhKc.png] [https://i.imgur.com/zqfTrwS.png] [https://i.imgur.com/A7fScpV.png] [https://i.imgur.com/OEyeTyx.png]). They responded with [https://i.imgur.com/p4hbihF.png this], as well as [[Special:Diff/887434|this]]. They clearly have seen my message and the errors I've pointed out in their edits, yet they still managed to make [[Special:Diff/887665|this]] edit on [[Telephone]], with the glaring errors highlighted [https://i.imgur.com/LR1jUcq.png 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 [[TSW:ER|editing restriction]] on them in order to ''require'' them to draft their edits and have them reviewed. [[User:LostInRiverview|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:Wikipedia:Edit requests|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: <span class="inline-quote-talk" style="font-family: Georgia, 'DejaVu Serif', serif; color: #008560;">I do know my edits have been causing trouble because right after editing I think to myself my edits end up looking like garbage.</span> 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? —[[User:K6ka|'''<span style="color:#0040FF">k6ka</span>''']] <span title="Canadian!" style="color:red">🍁</span> ([[User talk:K6ka|<span style="color:#0080FF">Talk</span>]] · [[Special:Contributions/K6ka|<span style="color:#0B4C5F">Contributions</span>]]) 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. -- '''[[User:LostInRiverview|<span style="color:navy;">LostInRiverview</span>]]<sup> [[User_talk:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">talk</font>]] · [[User_blog:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">blog</font>]] · [[Special:Contributions/LostInRiverview|<font color="green">contribs</font>]]</sup>''' 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. ― <span style="font:bold 108% 'Constantia';">[[User:C.Syde65|<font color="#800020">C.Syde</font>]]</span> <span style="font: 108% 'Adobe Garamond Pro';">([[User talk:C.Syde65|<font color="black">talk</font>]] | [[Special:Contributions/C.Syde65|<font color="black">contribs</font>]])</span> 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. — '''[[User:WikiBuilder1147|<font color="blue">THE TIM TAM</font>]] [[User_talk:WikiBuilder1147|<font color="blue">IS MY</font>]] [[User blog:WikiBuilder1147|<font color="blue">SPIRIT ANIMAL</font>]]''' <sup>([[w:c:sims:User:WikiBuilder1147|TSW]] • [[w:c:althistory:User:WikiBuilder1147|AH]] • [[w:c:mapgame:User:WikiBuilder1147|MGW]] • '''[[Special:Contributions/WikiBuilder1147|<font color="#006400">Contribs</font>]])'''</sup> 01:11, August 1, 2019 (UTC)
 
===Enactment===
The ER is now [https://sims.fandom.com/index.php?title=The_Sims_Wiki:Editing_restrictions&diff=prev&oldid=892605 in effect] and the user has [https://sims.fandom.com/index.php?title=User_talk:DrakonoSkerdikas&diff=prev&oldid=892608 been notified]. Appeal can be made on the [[TSW:AN|admins' noticeboard]]. —[[User:K6ka|'''<span style="color:#0040FF">k6ka</span>''']] <span title="Canadian!" style="color:red">🍁</span> ([[User talk:K6ka|<span style="color:#0080FF">Talk</span>]] · [[Special:Contributions/K6ka|<span style="color:#0B4C5F">Contributions</span>]]) 22:15, September 6, 2019 (UTC)
Anonymous user
Retrieved from "https://www.thesimswiki.com/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/530920...530945"