|
__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>]] | [[: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>]] | [[: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>]] | [[: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==
|