The Sims Wiki talk:Admin Portal

Community

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

User:ILoveSims5

ILoveSims5 (talk · contribs · editcount · block · modify rights · logs · block log) has no history of constructive edits outside of her own userspace, and has a history of repeatedly vandalizing infobox templates after being warned and blocked for that. Given that, I propose that we go straight to a permanent block the next time she vandalizes. Dharden (talk) 04:18, January 30, 2014 (UTC)

Seeing that her edits have been in the area of templates, we may temporarily lock the page (not the best practice IMO), extend her ban length, or give her an editing restriction in template namespace. It might need to take a little while until she could get a permanent ban. Nikel _{Talk – Vote!} 05:53, January 30, 2014 (UTC)

I'd be more in favor of giving her blocks of increasing length. She's already had a 1-day block, so the next logical step would be a 3-day block. That's what I'd personally do, but I wouldn't oppose an indefinite block either. -- LostInRiverview ^{talk ~ blog} 06:03, January 30, 2014 (UTC)

Normally I'd put my faith into believing that there is some hope and that this user would change their approach to editing the wiki. This isn't one of those situations. The lack of any constructive contributions and persistence to vandalise despite being warned several times speaks for itself and I for one wouldn't mind a permanent block here. Lost Labyrinth • (c) • (b) 14:16, January 30, 2014 (UTC)

That's pretty much the reasoning I was using. I'd support escalating blocks or a restriction on editing templates if this user had made some good-faith edits or had shown some sign of being reachable, but she hasn't. Dharden (talk) 04:06, January 31, 2014 (UTC)

Interpretation of RfA rules in relation to a current request

I have specifically asked for input from TSW's currently-active bureaucrats (other users are welcome to input as well) regarding an issue with the current RfA nomination. We're coming to the end of the initial five day discussion period and, while it's clear based on the input there that a consensus is not present to support promotion, I'm not sure whether the RfA should be dismissed or whether discussion should continue (with the possibility that it may eventually move to a vote).

My indecisiveness comes from the wording and meaning of the RfA nomination rules, the relevant bits of which I will paste here, with important points bolded:

Stage 2 - Discussion

• After the five day period of discussion has elapsed, it shall be determined whether a consensus has been reached. Consensus can only be reached in favor of a nominee, not in opposition to them. If the discussion shows consensus for a nominee, the nomination is successful and the user is promoted. If the discussion clearly shows a lack of consensus, the nomination will be ended and the nominee will not be promoted.
• In cases where a consensus is not clear after the initial discussion period, discussion will continue until there is a two-day long period, or longer, in which nothing is added to the discussion.
  • If this occurs and a clear consensus exists, the nomination is successful and the user is promoted.
  • If this occurs and a consensus in support is not clear, the nomination will proceed to Stage 3.

The issue here is in the definition of 'consensus'. TSW doesn't have a formal definition set up for this term, as far as I'm aware, but a quick web search of the term gives a dictionary definition of "general agreement."

So, to rephrase the rules into simpler terms, if a nomination shows a general agreement for promotion, promotion takes place. If a nomination shows a lack of general agreement about promotion, it fails. If it's not clear whether or not there is general agreement, discussion continues and may result in a vote.

Based on the current status of Joey.eyeball's RfA, a general agreement about promotion clearly does not exist. So, by the meaning of these words and the interpretation of the rules as written, this RfA should be closed down due to lack of consensus. However, I am curious as to whether it was truly our (as the community's) intent to set it up this way. The reason I'm curious is because of the next point - "In cases where a consensus is not clear." If going by the straightforward definition of consensus, I can see very very few circumstances where a consensus wouldn't be clear in one direction or the other. In reality, you either have a general agreement about something or you don't, but very rarely would you be in a position where you don't know just by looking at it whether or not you have that general agreement.

I believe that up to now we have assumed a different meaning for these terms. I think that we have generally worked under the idea that, unless consensus was clearly against a nomination, we would at least allow it to proceed to a vote, then use the strict rules under Stage 3 to determine the outcome. If that's the case, then in the near future we should seek to clean up the language to state as such. But, that still leaves the matter of the current RfA.

At the present time, and if acting in-line with the rules as written, I would close down Joey's RfA without proceeding to a vote. However, I am not comfortable with taking this action given what I see as a discontinuity between the rules as written and what I perceive to be the intent of the rule as it was originally written. I can't even say for sure whether I would support making the rule mean what I believe it does, but that's a discussion for the community and not really the present matter of concern.

So, let's figure this out. -- LostInRiverview ^{talk ~ blog} 02:50, February 4, 2014 (UTC)

Gnarr.... On one hand, it explicitly says that consensus cannot be reached against a nominee. On the other, there seems to be an implicit assumption that it can be. Gnarr.... As for the current RfA, the difference seems to be not on whether to support a promotion, but whether it should be done now or later. Dharden (talk) 03:15, February 4, 2014 (UTC)

RfAs need two-thirds support to pass and we have roughly the opposite of this here, so I'd just close it as unsuccessful and forgo the vote, though it does seem to be a close call here if we take into account that the nomination clearly supports the nominee. This isn't usually an issue for self-nominations but here the circumstances are rather different.

The issue at hand seems to be that how the nominations rules are written can be confusing. The way I see it is that if the discussion is favourable towards the promotion then the user is promoted while if it's unfavourable then they aren't while we move to a vote if the outcome is undecidedly split to the point where it would be impossible to determine consensus.

Confusing choice of words or a fatal flaw with the RfA system? I don't know. Maybe this is worth a more in-depth discussion but this is just my two pence on the matter. Lost Labyrinth • (c) • (b) 15:10, February 4, 2014 (UTC)

I think the biggest problem here may be a discrepancy between what the rule says and what we its meaning to be. Take, for instance, the points Lab has just raised - in a vote, it takes 2/3rds support to pass, but he also says that it passes if discussions is favorable towards promotion - which could in theory happen even if the nominee would otherwise receive only a majority support (>50% but <66.7%) but not meet the vote threshold we've established. So perhaps the stricter wording in the interpretation I've laid out above is better? Perhaps if we had wanted the nominee to receive only a majority support, we would have stated so in the discussion rules? Perhaps the consensus rule isn't incorrect after all, but our prior interpretation of it was?

As Lab has said already, this is probably a topic for the greater community to chew over, so I'll be starting a thread in Community Discussions soon. In the meantime, I am suggesting that we close down the request. -- LostInRiverview ^{talk ~ blog} 15:20, February 4, 2014 (UTC)

Now that the discussion is brought up, it does appear that the term "consensus" has a confusing meaning. Even more confusing is what the term "lack of consensus" means. In the discussion, we state our reasoning whether we support a nominee to be an admin or not. Although in a discussion it says that our statement is what really matters in making a conclusion, it's only like "agree / disagree" or "yes / no" as we simplify it in voting. In that way, the possible outcome would be either support or opposition, and there doesn't seem to be a way that makes it "unclear".

In Mate's RfA, the discussion tends to not support (not now, weak support, not ready) instead straight oppose. Is this what it means by "unclear"? It doesn't shut the possibility that some random user nominates oneself, and I could see that the general input would be straight oppose. Is it what it means by "clear"?

So what does "lack of consensus" mean? Does it mean lack of support, or lack of community input? In Mate's RfA where voting is implemented, it seems to be both. But I feel like the voting is implemented because the community input is inclined to be lacking, and that's when the term "unclear" would make sense too. Nikel _{Talk – Vote!} 05:14, February 5, 2014 (UTC)

Nikel, that's really the heart of what we're talking about... when we say something 'lacks consensus', do we mean that it is being opposed, or do we mean that it simply doesn't have resounding support? If going by dictionary definition, then something which has 50% of people agreeing and 50% disagreeing lacks consensus, even though half of them are in support. If going by what seems to be past precedent, in a 50/50 scenario we'd probably resort to a vote, despite the fact that this scenario clearly represents a "lack of consensus," since consensus means general agreement and a 50/50 split hardly represents agreement about anything. So the question here is whether we want to go by what is written, or whether we should re-write the rule to allow votes in close discussions instead of simply "unclear" ones. -- LostInRiverview ^{talk ~ blog} 05:23, February 5, 2014 (UTC)

I've made a thread that stems off of this discussion in a way of tackling this issue. Lost Labyrinth • (c) • (b) 13:40, February 5, 2014 (UTC)

User:Ilovemondler

I suspect that this may be ILoveSims5 attempting ban evasion. Dharden (talk) 02:36, February 17, 2014 (UTC)

Judging from her alias, her being in Friends wiki, and her biodata, it's highly likely that she's a sock. We could charge her for attempting ban evasion after ignoring the second chance for her to get unbanned from LiR. Nikel _{Talk – Vote!} 02:44, February 17, 2014 (UTC)

Will send in a CheckUser request to Wikia. If the CheckUser confirms that this account is a sockpuppet of ILoveSims5, we can block this one. K6ka (talk | contribs) 02:48, February 17, 2014 (UTC)

How is the check going? I'm not sure if the staff is willing to accept the request for a user with not-so-disruptive behavior. I think her biodata clearly resembles the blocked user, though her behavior doesn't. Nikel _{Talk – Vote!} 03:23, February 18, 2014 (UTC)

The evidence that this is a sock is pretty overwhelming. Even if we get denied for a CheckUser, I say we should block the account. -- LostInRiverview ^{talk ~ blog} 03:27, February 18, 2014 (UTC)

Received a response from Wikia, confirmed that this is a sockpuppet. Blocking now. K6ka (talk | contribs) 12:08, February 18, 2014 (UTC)

Establishing a new precedent regarding indefinite blocks

As detailed in Lab's blog about Wikia user email, it has been revealed that users will no longer be able to use the email feature to contact other users privately. While this feature isn't used on Wikia or The Sims Wiki nearly as extensively as on Wikipedia, there is one notable exception - user "appeal" emails for indefinite (aka infinite or permanent) blocks from the wiki.

There is no broad guideline set down regarding how users would be blocked indefinitely; some blocks are meant to be permanent, while others are simply indefinite, meaning that they could possibly be ended at some point in the future. The main avenue for reaching an end to an indefinite block was to utilize the email feature, but since that is no longer possible, we might have to determine a new course of action.

What I'm suggesting is that we come to some sort of agreement on how we'll handle indefinite blocks. That is, how we will handle blocks of an indeterminate length. The precedent we apply should be more standardized than it has been in the past, for the sake of fairness. But, because of the changes to the email system, this precedent must also be changed so it can still allow indefinitely blocked users to somehow contact wiki admins. The obvious solution, and really the only one left open to us, is to allow these users to edit their own talk pages. So, I would suggest that, if we indefinitely block a user from now on, we allow them to edit their talk page. In cases where this privilege is abused by the blocked user, it would be with the understanding that the privilege and, therefore, the ability to be unblocked will never be extended again. Perhaps we should also consider adding an 'infinite' block length into the standard lengths; this would allow us to differentiate between 'indefinite' blocks, which can be appealed and possibly terminated, and 'infinite' or 'permanent' blocks which cannot.

Thoughts? -- LostInRiverview ^{talk ~ blog} 23:21, February 19, 2014 (UTC)

That's what I have in mind when I block users. (Wikipedia-reference up ahead!) The Wikipedia blocking policy generally recommends that sysops allow blocked users to edit their talk pages so they can discuss the block with other admins. Talk page access is only revoked if the blocked editor abuses the privilege (such as using the talk page to insult, harass, make inappropriate unblock requests, or to continue vandalizing). ∴ I am in support of this proposal. K6ka (talk | contribs) 23:28, February 19, 2014 (UTC)

I feel we should be doing this anyway. I'm alright with auto-revoking (for the lack of a better term) talk page access for sockpuppet accounts (but let the main account use their talk page unless the abuse is long-term and extensive - it's situational really) and maybe obvious spambots too (most of them are hit-and-run anyway).

I'm not sure if we really need both an "indefinite" and an "infinite" block duration listing as if an indef-blocked user is abusing their talk page then we can simply revoke their access and then that's the end of it. I'm not opposed to the idea however.

Finally, and slightly derivative of the main topic, are we okay with IRC (seeing as they can't access Chat) being another form of communication with regards to blocked users? I know permabans on-wiki are usually naturally extended to IRC but I'd be okay with these users coming onto IRC to discuss their block and whatnot provided they're not messing around; if they are then we can simply ban them. Lost Labyrinth • (c) • (b) 13:26, February 24, 2014 (UTC)

Requesting on IRC works for me. Though regardless of whether they request on their talk page or IRC, any unblocking of an indefinitely-blocked account should probably be discussed by the admins here. -- LostInRiverview ^{talk ~ blog} 19:15, February 24, 2014 (UTC)

I'm OK with letting people request unblocking on IRC, but any unblocking of an indefinitely-blocked account should definitely be discussed by the admins here, so that all will have a chance to contribute to it. Dharden (talk) 20:12, February 24, 2014 (UTC)

Should we go through the Block list and grant talk page access for users that have had them revoked? K6ka (talk | contribs) 02:15, February 25, 2014 (UTC)

I would say yes, except in those cases where they had been extended talk page rights in the past but abused them (there are a few cases of this, they should appear in the block logs). Honestly, I don't think many users would exercise that second chance, but for the sake of fairness I think we should. -- LostInRiverview ^{talk ~ blog} 04:14, February 25, 2014 (UTC)

┌─────────────────┘

Threadcromancy, but I'm just gonna be bold and change the block settings for the blocked users - once I can find time, that is. K6ka (talk | contribs) 11:58, March 21, 2014 (UTC)

Handling RfA and RfB pages for users who apply/are nominated multiple times

One of the results of the rights requests reform of last year was the implementation of holding discussions for individual user RfAs and RfBs on sub-pages of the main RfA and RfB page. So, for example, the discussion of promoting K6ka to administrator took place on the "The Sims Wiki:Requests for administratorship/K6ka" sub-page. This procedure works well if a promotion is successful.

However, it is likely inevitable that we will have a user whose first RfA or RfB ended without promotion later apply or be nominated again. If this happened, we would run into a problem, since the first (unsuccessful) would be named TSW:Requests for <adminship/bureaucratship>/<User name>, meaning we would need to come up with a unique name to give to the second and subsequent requests. To head off this eventual problem, I've moved all the archived RfA and RfB pages, such that the name of the page now includes the month and year when the page was created. So, for example, K6Ka's successful RfA now is archived at The Sims Wiki:Requests for administratorship/K6ka (January 2014). When new RfA or RfB request pages are created, they should follow this same format as well. -- LostInRiverview ^{talk ~ blog} 19:18, February 22, 2014 (UTC)

Shyflower3

Shyflower3 certainly passes the duck test for sockpuppetry. Sock master is Shyflower2, which is a sockpuppet of Holdit, which is a sockpuppet of Scarygirla. Shyflower3 was on chat today and produced violent RP messages. K6ka (talk | contribs) 21:31, February 25, 2014 (UTC)

Already banhammered. Just as an aside, you don't have to bring it up here immediately if you see a sock, especially an obvious one. If the evidence is overwhelming, like it was here, then feel free to deal with them yourself. Lost Labyrinth • (c) • (b) 21:39, February 25, 2014 (UTC)

Administrator Fake

What would happen if a non-administrator added the administrator and / or bureaucrat userbox to their userpage? C.Syde (talk | contribs) 06:14, March 16, 2014 (UTC)

Those are admin-only userboxes. If a user were to add one, it would be removed and they would receive a warning. -- LostInRiverview ^{talk ~ blog} 12:25, March 16, 2014 (UTC)

Jerichovictor11's fanons

Jerichovictor11 (talk · contribs · editcount · block · modify rights · logs · block log) has recently been blocked for being underage, and the block expires on November 2015. The problem is, he has a lot of fanons that are low in quality, and putting fanon maintenance templates (i.e. {{Fanon-cleanup}} and {{Fanon-stub}}) is pointless since the author can't do anything with it anyway. I delete fanon stubs that have been left unedited for considerable amount of time, but I don't really think these fanons should wait for 20 months until it can be improved by the author. Should we keep them by tagging the Fanon-stub templates or delete them outright? Nikel _{Talk – Vote!} 14:58, March 22, 2014 (UTC)

I agree with deletion. -- LostInRiverview ^{talk ~ blog} 15:01, March 22, 2014 (UTC)

The policy says to delete it anyway. All his fanon has been nuked by technology. Lost Labyrinth • (c) • (b) 21:11, March 22, 2014 (UTC)

Ah, good 'ol adminbots. Should the images he uploaded go as well? If he comes back and wants them back, we could always restore them. K6ka (talk | contribs) 21:15, March 22, 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of them, Lab. The unused files would be piled up in Special:UnusedFiles. Eventually they might be deleted anyway, but I guess he could ask us to restore them. Nikel _{Talk – Vote!} 16:55, March 25, 2014 (UTC)

Removing a comment from my fanon page

I accidentally logged out while posting a comment on my own fanon page. If it's possible, could an administrator please remove the comment. I've re-posted it under my own userpage. I know it's nothing to be bugged about, but it would be nice to have this comment removed. C.Syde (talk | contribs) 05:08, April 2, 2014 (UTC)

Done. K6ka (talk | contribs) 10:57, April 2, 2014 (UTC)

That's better. Thanks! :) C.Syde (talk | contribs) 02:33, April 3, 2014 (UTC)

ILoveSims5

Relocated from Forum:Unblock system

Hey, I noticed that Nikel potentially blocked the IP address for ILoveSims5. If it turns out that this is indeed her IP address, does this mean she will be unable to return to the Sims wiki without requesting an unblock? I was just wondering. C.Syde (talk | contribs) 05:01, April 12, 2014 (UTC)

By now, I expect her to respond her ban in any of her accounts. She has failed to do that 6 times. If she doesn't communicate with us, nothing will stop her from making even more socks. I allowed her to leave a message in her own IP address talk page, but didn't tell her that. I guess I forgot. Nikel _{Talk – Vote!} 10:29, April 12, 2014 (UTC)

Autoblock was supposedly enabled on all her socks, and all the blocks supposedly disabled account creation. The block settings are carried on into the autoblock, which usually lasts for 24 hours and can autoblock other IP addresses (hence the term "Collateral Damage" when a shared IP is autoblock, in which the MediaWiki software recklessly blocks thousands of innocent users). Call me crazy, but I have no clue how ILoveSims5 is getting around her block. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 11:38, April 12, 2014 (UTC)

Okay, looked up the IP address here. It is a static IP address, run by Verizon Online LLC. We should be able to block it safely, though if the IP changes owners, then we'll need to unblock it as soon as we find out. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 11:56, April 12, 2014 (UTC)

Mass article spammer (IP)

Well, it looks like our old friend (well, not old, but "New") has learned the art of clever IP hopping - a dangerous enemy.

IPs 108.40.164.174, 108.40.195.112, and 108.40.198.230 were blocked for vandalism, with the content being the same. 108.40.198.230 also vandalized Wikipedia today - 1, 2, 3, 4, etc. The IP addresses appear to change owners, meaning that, if we block an IP, the next day the vandal is issued a new IP address and now we have an innocent user blocked. Especially with the new edit filter LiR Lab set up; the effectiveness diminishes as the vandal hops around IPs while we block innocent users in a desperate attempt to stop it - similar to trying to fire a cannon at a guy who's running at top speed.

If my limited knowledge in IP addresses is correct, all these IPs are in the same range, so we need to rangeblock the whole darn thing, autoblock disabled, anonymous users only. The IP range is owned by Verizon, for reference. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 22:47, April 14, 2014 (UTC)

Oh, if you were wondering about my block - yeah, i accidentally tripped the filter and it blocked me. I'm a clumsy admin. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 22:47, April 14, 2014 (UTC)

I did have the range blocked initially prior to the filter coming up, but it doesn't seem to be helping much. I've put the range block back up for 3 months...for now. Lost Labyrinth • (c) • (b) 23:05, April 14, 2014 (UTC)

(For the record, Lab set up the filter, not I.) -- LostInRiverview ^{talk ~ blog} 23:27, April 14, 2014 (UTC)

Ah yes, pfft. *slaps forehead* Brainfart. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 23:32, April 14, 2014 (UTC)

It's alright, I'll forgive you. But don't ever do it again. -- LostInRiverview ^{talk ~ blog} 23:35, April 14, 2014 (UTC)

77.251.79.188 and Marcky2001

Special:BlockList indicates that this IP and Marcky2001 are the same, as the IP was autoblocked when I blocked Marcky. Dharden (talk) 21:51, April 21, 2014 (UTC)

96.224.66.16

This anon, 96.224.66.16 (talk · contribs · editcount · block · modify rights · logs · block log), is blocked, but he doesn't seem to have any block logs. When I left a message on his talk page on April 25, I'm certain he wasn't blocked at that time. When I checked blocked users list, only FriendsandSimsLuver (talk · contribs · editcount · block · modify rights · logs · block log) and an autoblock are blocked between 25th and 27th, and haven't expired until now. I'm just wondering if this IP belongs to FriendsandSimsLuver, who is the sock of ILoveSims5 or this block was caused by the autoblock. Nikel _{Talk – Vote!} 16:41, April 27, 2014 (UTC)

An IP lookup shows that the user is located on Long Island, New York, which is where ILoveSims5 lives. So, it seems pretty likely that the IP was blocked along with FriendsandSimsLuver. - LostInRiverview ^{talk ~ blog} 22:56, April 27, 2014 (UTC)

ILoveSims5 isn't the only person living on Long Island. Could belong to someone else. Thing is though, since this IP does not have a local block log, the IP may have been globally blocked by Wikia. It happened here once, where a user was globally blocked but nothing showed up in the block log. The only evidence was the "BLOCKED" flag on their userpage header. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 01:05, April 28, 2014 (UTC)

I checked the block list and removed the autoblock, which unblocked 96.224.66.16. The fact that the user's IP was flagged as being similar to User:MondlerLove (who is a sock of ILoveSims5) and the fact that the IP address locates to suburban Long Island - like others associated with ILoveSims5 - leads me to conclude that this IP must be associated with it. -- LostInRiverview ^{talk ~ blog} 01:35, April 28, 2014 (UTC)

FYI, the anon had created several fanons, e.g. Fanon:Justine Dattilo, Fanon:Summer Anderson, and Fanon:Shirley Jones, which used to belong to Ilovemondler and MondlerLove. Not to mention, the anon clearly has a pattern of not finishing their fanon. I believe the IP is a sock now. The autoblock wasn't incorrect after all. Nikel _{Talk – Vote!} 08:31, April 29, 2014 (UTC)

ILoveSims5, again

So, ILoveSims5 (talk · contribs · editcount · block · modify rights · logs · block log) has thrice applied for unblock and has thrice been denied such. Lab has revoked her talk page access, effectively making her block permanent. I would like to suggest, however, that we not give up on this user quite yet. Simply put, I feel that her actions aren't meant to be malevolent, but are simply misguided. What I failed to explain to her, and what has so far not been explained to her in her unblock denials, is that we simply can't ignore the attempts at ban evasion that have taken place since this main account was first indefinitely blocked. I feel that this fact should've been made clear - unblock requests at this stage simply won't be successful because there's no demonstration that the user is willing to take the time and consider their actions. I would have explained this to her, except for the fact that I am prohibited from denying her requests since I was the admin that blocked her.

In her case, I think the most effective way for her to prove her readiness to return would be to stop making socks and to wait for a few months before requesting unblock again. This is because the most damning thing she has done is create sock puppets. The actions that led to her being blocked in the first place were aggravating but not necessarily in bad faith. However, circumventing a block would almost always be a bad faith action, and it's that action that I was hoping to address.

Ultimately, I'm not necessarily proposing any course of action. My belief is that she isn't trying to do this on purpose but simply doesn't understand her situation. My suggestion, therefore, would be to have someone explain to her why her requests are being denied, tell her that she needs to wait, then wait for a few months before returning talk page access to her. If she can sit for that time without creating socks, I think it would go a long way towards demonstrating her readiness to return. If, however, she continues to block evade, then she truly would be a lost cause. -- LostInRiverview ^{talk ~ blog} 21:09, May 5, 2014 (UTC)

My view on ILS5 is that the user is unexperienced with wiki editing in general. Her edits at the other two wikis are minimal, and I'm under the impression that ILS5 didn't know what she was doing when editing the templates: after all, ILS5's biggest issue that caused this was the repeated template vandalism (which I believe is caused by her lack of knowledge that it was undone) and sockpuppets. Given that none of us (I haven't left a message there, which was IMO because I was semi-absent then) were there to instruct her how to use the templates to help build her fanon, my suggested course of action is to give her a final chance, but before that, thoroughly instruct her. In effect, if we are to unblock ILS5, she will be conscripted into the adopt-a-user program, and I (and a few others) will serve as the mentor. I was personally leaving her a message on how to use the template page in the slight prospect of ILS5 actually getting unblocked before LiR notified me of this topic. MILK FOR THE UNYUUFEX, FLAT CHEST FOR THE CUTENESS THRONE, SKULLS FOR THE SKULL PROBES (user talk:Mathetesalexandrou) 21:24, May 5, 2014 (UTC)

I feel she's had more than enough chances already to acknowledge what she did wrong and she's had several opportunities to at least attempt to rectify her behaviour and she's failed to do just that. She was asked nicely in her first two unblock requests to acknowledge she was in the wrong and to try to convince us why we should give her another chance. Again, she failed at that and came back with a nonsensical third unblock request that was completely irrelevant to the block at hand. If she hasn't already realised that ban evasion is a no-no from her countless number of accounts being blocked then there's really no point explaining it to her. Maybe she's inexperienced but is it really an excuse?

This is why I'm not convinced that unblocking her would be a good idea hence that was why I revoked her talk page access. If somebody wants to try and give her a grace period to not make any accounts then I won't stop you but I'm not expecting any miracles. If she is ultimately unblocked then I strongly suggest she's either listed on TSW:ER or adopted or possibly both. Lost Labyrinth • (c) • (b) 21:29, May 5, 2014 (UTC)

I agree that unblocking her at this point would be premature. But I also think it's premature to close the door on that possibility in the future. -- LostInRiverview ^{talk ~ blog} 21:32, May 5, 2014 (UTC)

Agree with LiR's point. I've left a note on her talk page explaining why she was blocked and her ticket - and gateway - to being unblocked. I've made it clear that she should not create any more accounts, and advised her not to continue making pointless unblock requests. If she squanders this round, we can feel comfortable closing this door. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 21:44, May 5, 2014 (UTC)

I concur with k6ka's decision. To connect with k6ka giving ILS5 a chance to discuss this on IRC, if ILS5 does discuss this on IRC, inform me please of the content, or better upload the entire chat log. MILK FOR THE UNYUUFEX, FLAT CHEST FOR THE CUTENESS THRONE, SKULLS FOR THE SKULL PROBES (user talk:Mathetesalexandrou) 21:54, May 5, 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Lost In Riverview, Lost Labyrinth, K6ka and Mathetealexandrou. C.Syde (talk | contribs) 09:21, May 6, 2014 (UTC)

I think we should unblock ILoveSims5 in a few months time - but only if she doesn't try to evade her block. Then if she does any more vandalism then we should just re-block her - like that! I'm not an administrator myself, but if I was I would unfortunately oppose her requests for unblock - at least for a few months. C.Syde (talk | contribs) 05:43, May 8, 2014 (UTC)

Given Syde's opinion, I feel like I'm in the "extremist" minority that believes ILoveSims5 could do well with a fairly early unblock of say few weeks, as I'm on the notion that lessons are often learned quickly or not at all. But who knows. MILK FOR THE UNYUUFEX, FLAT CHEST FOR THE CUTENESS THRONE, SKULLS FOR THE SKULL PROBES (user talk:Mathetesalexandrou) 17:25, May 8, 2014 (UTC)

Alright, so the discussion immediately above this one (titled #96.224.66.16) mentions that that particular anon was autoblocked by a block issued against MondlerLove, which is a sock of ILoveSims5. The autoblock was removed but this IP continues to create fanon articles without registering an account. The thing is, the evidence at hand makes me very confident that 96.224.66.16 is an IP address associated with ILoveSims5. My reasoning for this theory is as follows:

1. The 96.224.66.16 IP address is located (approximately) in the Long Island area of New York. This is also the home of ILoveSims5, according to the global header on her profile. It is true that many people live on Long Island, but only a couple hundred unique people edit The Sims Wiki from month to month across the entire world, so the odds that two of them would live very close to each other and have similar editing patterns (as I will detail shortly) is pretty remote.
2. Both the anon and ILS5 seem to have a fascination with The Sims and the TV show Friends. Several of ILS5's sock accounts have directly or indirectly referenced a love of Friends (e.g. Mondler in "MondlerLove" is an amalgamation of "Monica" and "Chandler", two characters in the show), and some of the anon's Fanon works have been based on or derived from other Friends characters (for instance, Fanon:Ross Geller Jr., very likely based off the Ross character from Friends, or possibly his son).
3. Both the anon and ILS5 tend to write in title case i.e. Almost Every Word in Sentences That They Write are Capitalized, Like This.

It is impossible to prove with 100% certainty that these two are the same, especially since Wikia Staff will not confirm a connection between a known IP address and a registered user. But I feel like there's enough here to show that they are one in the same. To that effect, I've blocked 96.224.66.16 for three months. -- LostInRiverview ^{talk ~ blog} 20:56, May 10, 2014 (UTC)

I have an additional piece of evidence, which is the smoking gun that definitively links the IP to ILS5 - Fanon:Ellie Sims (non-admins won't be able to view that page). The page was initially created by MondlerLove in February, and was deleted when MondlerLove was indefinitely blocked. At that time, K6ka requested a CheckUser, and that CheckUser confirmed that MondlerLove and ILoveSims5 are the same person. After this, the Ellie Sims page was recreated by two different IP users - 71.167.70.105 and the previously-mentioned 96.224.66.16. The most recent recreation of the page was on May 10th, which is after ILoveSims5's unblock requests, in which multiple users made it clear that she was to stop attempting to evade her block. With this in mind, I am retracting my support for giving her a final chance; her block should be permanent. We've given her enough chances to learn her lesson and reform her behavior and she seems either unwilling to learn or unwilling to cooperate. -- LostInRiverview ^{talk ~ blog} 22:13, May 10, 2014 (UTC)

Judging by ILoveSims5's unloving behaviour towards the wiki, what with his/her persistent attempts at block evasion and wasting our time with pointless and unconvincing unblock requests, I will repeal my offer at ILS5's last chance at getting unblocked. There's no coming back for him/her... --k6ka (talk | contribs) 22:59, May 10, 2014 (UTC)

65.78.158.183

This user has already been blocked for inserting false information to articles. User has been warned to improve their behaviour, continues to insert false information, and does not make constructive edits. Personally I believe that an administrator needs to go ahead and block this user. It's obvious that they've had all the chances they deserve. C.Syde (talk | contribs) 04:22, May 10, 2014 (UTC)

Blocked for 1 week. In future, please use this page to report users that require administrative intervention of any kind. Lost Labyrinth • (c) • (b) 12:20, May 10, 2014 (UTC)

However, this anon has been repeatedly warned, and has been blocked twice before. I think we need to discuss what to do about them, especially if they continue their behavior after this latest block. Dharden (talk) 12:31, May 10, 2014 (UTC)

Take them to TSW:ER. Just for reference, here's the IP address data - [1][2]. One of the sources suspect that this IP is a "Dynamic IP", meaning it may change owners constantly. That's not a good sign. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 12:46, May 10, 2014 (UTC)

I don't support an ER in this case. The user has shown no attempts to edit constructively, and setting an ER assumes that there should be at least some reason why the user doesn't deserve an outright block for their actions. -- LostInRiverview ^{talk ~ blog} 22:36, May 10, 2014 (UTC)

Indeffing the IP would probably cause some concerns with innocent users getting blocked. I'll just keep an eye on the IP and block them if they persist. Hopefully they'll get bored and go spend their time doing something else. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 22:59, May 10, 2014 (UTC)

IPs can be really irritating sometimes. There are times when I wish this wiki was limited only for access by registered users. But this would then have a big disadvantage towards newcomers. C.Syde (talk | contribs) 07:54, May 11, 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately that comes with the wiki, same with users who only want to mess about. I know some wikis do have anonymous editing disabled but to be honest I'm happy that we allow for it and you are right that it is more of a disadvantage for new users than anything else. That said if you do think we should discuss it on a larger scale then you're more than welcome to bring it up. Lost Labyrinth • (c) • (b) 12:36, May 11, 2014 (UTC)

I personally disagree with disabling anonymous editing. Why else would Wikipedia be so successful if it actually lived up to its slogan - "The Free Encyclopedia that anyone can edit". Sure, nearly 80%+ of vandalism come from anonymous users, but 70% of anonymous edits are not vandalism. Some people prefer editing behind an IP address without registering for an account. Wikis that allow anonymous editing are allowing people to choose. It also helps for people who are not into wiki-editing and only edited once or twice just to fix a typo or something. It saves them (and the servers) from creating accounts that won't be used later on anyways. But, as this is the administrator's noticeboard and not the forums, I'll stop right there. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 16:58, May 11, 2014 (UTC)

That is true. C.Syde (talk | contribs) 04:19, May 12, 2014 (UTC)

User came back after their recent block.... and this time they've been editing other people's fanons without permission. There are some edits that I'm hesitant to revert though, such as this one. I've blocked the IP for another month, since it's evident they ignored the block reasons. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 18:39, June 4, 2014 (UTC)

I reverted the diff above. Even if it "seems" wrong, the author might've had other things on their mind. Anyways, it's still wrong. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 18:45, June 4, 2014 (UTC)

Food Fiction: The Sims Feast

Hi Sims admins,

I wanted to run a fun idea by you all to see if you can help us make it as fun of an idea as possible.

We've been running Food Fiction programs with various communities. Here is a list of all the ones we've done so far here .

With the release of The Sims 4 upcoming, we'd like to plan to do a Food Fiction with you all!

For each program, we start off with a blog post on the community, inviting users to nominate their favorite dishes in various categories. We'd need admin help promoting that post as well as help deciding what those categories should be. We think it could be as simple as an appetizer, main dish, dessert, drink, and some extra fun category. Here's an example of that from our Adventure Time Food Fiction.

One idea we had would be to ask the users to design their feast, create the feast in game, and submit a screen shot of their party menu laid out (can be from any version of the Sims). We think this makes it a little harder to submit a menu, but definitely more fun.

Finally, we'll take the most popular nominees in each category and put them into polls by category on a post on Recipes Wikia. Here's an example from the same Adventure Time FF.

If you all like the idea, we'd like to save it for the mid-August/early September time frame. That would give us some time to also try to get a prize for the winner! Let us know what you think about the ideas and categories.

Thanks!

Annette <staff/> (profile)•(talk) 22:38, May 12, 2014 (UTC)Acardwell415

Determining consensus on "Regular Sim" discussion

We've had this thread open since February and discussion there has died off to the point where it's time to archive the thread and implement the decision that was reached. I personally believe the consensus is towards adopting the word 'Sim' to refer to humanoid non-occult simulated persons. However, this discussion isn't clear-cut one way or the other, so it could be argued that an alternative decision was reached, or that no decision was reached at all. Considering that I was the one to initially propose the discussion and that I am advocating for my particular suggested definition, I don't believe I can act in an unbiased manner to determine what the consensus is and to close that thread.

So, I would like us to determine whether or not a consensus has been reached and, if it has, what the consensus is. -- LostInRiverview ^{talk ~ blog} 01:42, May 18, 2014 (UTC)

Two users

Hello, I noticed that Kaiko Mikkusu and Kaylabaraonda are usually takes part of the talk page of a certain Sim and fanons. However, judging by her impressions and her style of writing theories, I think she used her other account as a sockpuppet. Although, I'm not against her or anything bad but I just wondered that if he/she uses two accounts. ThePeculiarMe | (talk to me) 11:50, May 22, 2014 (UTC)

Only a CheckUser could tell for sure, but Wikia will most likely decline our CheckUser requests in this case since the two are not vandalizing the wiki, nor are they evading blocks like ILoveSims5. Keep an eye on the two accounts, and use the Duck test when necessary. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 11:56, May 22, 2014 (UTC)

Okay, so, by any chances, a user and his/her sockpuppets vandalizes the wiki, can considered blocking to them. ThePeculiarMe | (talk to me) 12:06, May 22, 2014 (UTC)

Looking through the edits these users have made, I don't see any red flags that would suggest that the two are the same person. -- LostInRiverview ^{talk ~ blog} 14:56, May 22, 2014 (UTC)

While this user hasn't done anything bad, the practice of having multiple accounts is still discouraged. I could understand if the user has lost the password of the old account and made a new one (Kaylabaraonda signed up on September 2011, while Kaiko Mikkusu did on April 2014). However, both of these accounts are still active and have been recently used. Nikel _{Talk – Vote!} 06:24, May 30, 2014 (UTC)

User:Bootyfacezforev and 65.129.158.170

The two users have acted in a rather similar fashion: they're both involved in the comment section of the Elsa Frozen fanon, the IP having vandalized the fanon. However, there are key issues that make me almost certain that they are either the same user, or siblings. Bootyfacezforev have explicitly stated that the IP address that the user uses is the same as the IP address that was blocked, which can occur if the distance between the user and the IP address is rather small. However, there are other problems as well: Bootyfacezforev claims that his/her sibling has caused some trouble beforehand, which reeks of wikipedia:WP:BRO. However, the critical factor is the fanons: the IP address has created a fanon that is attributed to an nonexistent user lulu42546. The problem is that Bootyfacezforev does the exact same thing. Given that, I'm under the impression that the account has either been compromised, or the IP and the user are the same person. MILK FOR THE UNYUUFEX, FLAT CHEST FOR THE CUTENESS THRONE, SKULLS FOR THE SKULL PROBES (user talk:Mathetesalexandrou) 23:11, May 23, 2014 (UTC)

Quack! Quack! Quack! --k6ka (talk | contribs) 00:48, May 24, 2014 (UTC)

I presume no action should be taken since the user hasn't committed vandalism or other negative edits on the wiki as the user, besides the lulu42546 thing? MILK FOR THE UNYUUFEX, FLAT CHEST FOR THE CUTENESS THRONE, SKULLS FOR THE SKULL PROBES (user talk:Mathetesalexandrou) 01:26, May 24, 2014 (UTC)

Only a Checkuser can 100% confirm the relation between the account and the IP. If the IP of the account matches the one that vandalized the fanon, further action may be taken. However, Wikia Staff will refuse any Checkuser request in this case due to potential violations of the privacy policy (Wikipedia is like this as well). So the only thing we have is the Duck test.

I left a message on the user's talk page about using non-existent usernames in the {{Property}} template, and if they ignore it and continue giving me free edits in correcting this, I may post back here. Of course, the IP was only blocked for 31 hours, so it would only be 31 hours of block evasion. I don't think we need to jump to an indefinite block for sockpuppetry just yet. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 02:11, May 24, 2014 (UTC)

I agree.

I'm not sure why, but these two users make me a tad suspicious. C.Syde (talk | contribs) 02:16, May 24, 2014 (UTC)

Just for reference, here's a few IP lookups - [3] [4] [5]. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 02:26, May 24, 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm...two users in Monroe, one in Tucson, three in America. Is that enough to prove that the users are different? I don't know how far Monroe is from Tucson. I'm not very familiar with the American countries. C.Syde (talk | contribs) 02:41, May 24, 2014 (UTC)

Tucson is in Arizona, which is in the south western part of the US (close to California). Monroe is in Louisiana, which is in what is considered "The South". And that is between Texas (south in the middle part of the US) and Florida (the south eastern part of the US). So I would say that those two places are more than 1,000 miles apart. Icemandeaf (talk) 02:50, May 24, 2014 (UTC)

Okay then, seems like these users are different after all! C.Syde (talk | contribs) 02:52, May 24, 2014 (UTC)

She (as it was said to her bio) created an another account called Lulu42546 which it is her sibling or herself. And this is really confusing what is she using or whatnot. (and also she thinks I vandalizing her fanon -_-). ThePeculiarMe | (talk to me) 04:24, May 24, 2014 (UTC)

Personally I think that kind of behaviour is unacceptable. It's basically the equivalent to, if not exactly sockpuppetry. We need to keep a close watch on these two accounts, if you ask me. C.Syde (talk | contribs) 04:38, May 24, 2014 (UTC)

If User:Bootyfacezforev and User:Lulu42546 are the same person, it could mean a block for sockpuppetry. Should I contact Wikia Staff and request a CheckUser be performed? --k6ka (talk | contribs) 17:56, May 24, 2014 (UTC)

I was one step behind from reading it. I've just noticed a sign of sockpuppetry between these users under fanons that created by Bootyfacezforev, but possessed by Lulu42546. However, since they were in bad quality and requested for deletion, I deleted them ahead. Admins can still see the deleted contribution history of these fanons / users, but regular users cannot.

Anyway, I guess we could use CheckUser to see if one of these users is a sock. But the way I remember it, Wikia Staff doesn't voluntarily let anyone use this tool with just a very small issue. Since this issue is just basically a fanon owned by two users suspected to belong to the same person, they might drop the request? Anyway, I want to see any further action between these two users in the meantime. Nikel _{Talk – Vote!} 06:43, May 25, 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Nikel's opinion. C.Syde (talk | contribs) 06:46, May 25, 2014 (UTC)

We don't necessarily need a Checkuser. Like I said, the Duck test is pretty good at ratting out bad sockpuppets. Another would be to block each user and see if the IP gets autoblocked, though the block should only ever be necessary if the situation calls for it (i.e. they start vandalizing the wiki).

And yeah, I think Wikia Staff would just laugh us out of the contact page with a request over non-vandalism sockpuppetry. Well, not really. The IP vandalized someone else's fanon. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 01:55, May 26, 2014 (UTC)

Simsmaster55 is ILS5?

There is a user named User:Simsmaster55 aka Christyanna. I think she is ILS5 because of her picture and obvious bio. And add to that, I think this is her sockpuppet. ThePeculiarMe | (talk to me) 00:30, May 30, 2014 (UTC)

Quack, quack. The user has been blocked. -- LostInRiverview ^{talk ~ blog} 01:34, May 30, 2014 (UTC)

Lost all hopes of ILS5 improving now. We told sockpuppets aren't allowed but no. MILK FOR THE UNYUUFEX, FLAT CHEST FOR THE CUTENESS THRONE, SKULLS FOR THE SKULL PROBES (user talk:Mathetesalexandrou) 01:37, May 30, 2014 (UTC)

Also, I saw her website that she created many stories. And her bio stated that she is 11 (the proof). And add to the question, I usually see her username, like a wanted list, why she is well-known as a blocker anyway? (I don't usually explore much to the wiki) ThePeculiarMe | (talk to me) 01:46, May 30, 2014 (UTC)

If so, ILS5 isn't supposed to be on the wiki anyways given the policy. As for the reason that ILS5 has to be hunted down and blocked is because ILS5 ripped the daylights out of two templates. While it is my opinion that ILS5's repeated vandalism was caused by her lack of knowledge of how wiki works, ILS5 has repeatedly created boatloads of socks to avoid bans. Simsmaster55 is the last of the sockpuppets, and given ILS5 returning to ban evade, we're likely to see more MILK FOR THE UNYUUFEX, FLAT CHEST FOR THE CUTENESS THRONE, SKULLS FOR THE SKULL PROBES (user talk:Mathetesalexandrou) 01:51, May 30, 2014 (UTC)

I see, then due to her reasons are unaccepted b/c it is unreasonable and irrelevant to her blocking and her editor skills are much inexperience as it was proven to her other wiki contributions, I think she won't be stop until she wants us to know her more and share her (redundant) fanons. ThePeculiarMe | (talk to me) 02:02, May 30, 2014 (UTC)

If she wants to create fanons, she can do it on her own website. The Sims Wiki has enough of ILoveSims5. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 02:16, May 30, 2014 (UTC)

Hold on a sec. If 96.224.66.16 is her IP address, and if that IP is currently blocked with account creation disabled, how the heck is she getting around her block and creating new accounts??! --k6ka (talk | contribs) 02:18, May 30, 2014 (UTC)

IP blocks aren't foolproof. Maybe she's at a friend's house and using their internet connection? Maybe she was at school? It's hard to say. She could also be using a proxy, since an IP block wouldn't be able to detect that. -- LostInRiverview ^{talk ~ blog} 02:26, May 30, 2014 (UTC)

┌─────────────────┘

If we do need to contact Wikia for data that we normally cannot access, then it'll have to be. Wikia might global-block any IPs she's using to get around the block, which is rather unfortunate if one happens to be her school's IP. My school board's entire IP address is blocked from Wikipedia until 2015 because someone kept replacing articles with "WOOP WOOP VANDALISM WOOP WOOP". It sucks, but the block doesn't affected logged in users, so a nice distraction from class is still possible. Seems kinda cruel if she's using a friend's IP. Nice friend you got there, getting them autoblocked.

If she is using a proxy though, we'll need to block that proxy as soon as we find out.

The best we certainly can hope for though, is that she'll get bored of this whole "Create-Edit-Block" cycle and eventually just leave. Or at least, stay on her website, where I am more than happy in having her stay there and not here fracturing our policies (and templates). --k6ka (talk | contribs) 02:45, May 30, 2014 (UTC)

And also, why she wants to join here, if she creates trouble because of lack of experiences in the wiki, has a website, join for like 4-5 wikis? Is that not enough for her? She is a bad user. Well, Corymach7 is far worse than her. ThePeculiarMe | (talk to me) 02:54, May 30, 2014 (UTC)

At this point it seems pretty evident that she's here to disrupt the wiki, judging by how she ignored all the warnings we gave her, continued to create accounts to evade blocks despite our advice, and filed pointless unblock requests that just wasted our time rather than get us to stop and consider the unblock. I linked her to WP:GAB, but apparently she didn't read it. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 02:57, May 30, 2014 (UTC)

I tend to believe in the adage, "never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." Some people really don't understand their actions, so it's not always correct to say that they're breaking the rules maliciously. But, that doesn't excuse them from the rules and it doesn't change any of the circumstances of this situation. I'm just saying, it's not usually a good idea to call someone a "bad user" when they could just as easily be an incompetent user. To say that they are merely stupid assumes that their heart is in the right place (however misguided their actions may be), while saying that they're bad fails to assume good faith. - LostInRiverview ^{talk ~ blog} 03:13, May 30, 2014 (UTC)

Here's the list of her sock, and the list keeps going. Generally, her behavior is rather annoying, especially her typing quirks that Capitalize Every First Word. Personally, I won't suggest her create a fanon here, because it would be stubbish and end up being deleted anyway. Nikel _{Talk – Vote!} 04:21, May 30, 2014 (UTC)

You should add the fact that she is underage. And yeah, with the bio of her Sims, it saids that "<Name> loves her/his life" She should have more specific to her fanon or else I won't read it since it is like an infobox and lack of information. ThePeculiarMe | (talk to me) 04:27, May 30, 2014 (UTC)

I forgot the underage aspect. This means she'll have no chance on being unblocked until she reaches 13 years old. I was just about to consider whether she should be given one last free chance... but this changes everything. Nikel _{Talk – Vote!} 04:35, May 30, 2014 (UTC)

Her being underage isn't really relevant. She's used up all the extra chances she deserves. Compared to other cases we've been quite forgiving of her, but she has done nothing to show that she is ready to return. We issued an ultimatum and she failed to meet it, so there can be no further "last chances". -- LostInRiverview ^{talk ~ blog} 06:26, May 30, 2014 (UTC)

I agree with K6ka. If she wants to create fanons, she can do it on her own website. I would have thought that with her own fanon Sims website, she would by now have given up on coming here. Apparently not. :| C.Syde (talk | contribs) 04:48, June 1, 2014 (UTC)

User:Vínci

Does anybody know why Vínci (talk · contribs · editcount · block · modify rights · logs · block log) (a.k.a. Pandassim0) was blocked? He's the one who usually links to Russian TSW. No one seems to have blocked him when you look at his block log, though. Nikel _{Talk – Vote!} 13:07, June 16, 2014 (UTC)

This usually happens when the user is globally blocked. The global block log is inaccessible to us normal users and is only visible to Wikia Staff, Helpers, and VSTF. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 13:29, June 16, 2014 (UTC)

Does that mean he's blocked somewhere, but globally, for reasons we don't know? Nikel _{Talk – Vote!} 13:43, June 16, 2014 (UTC)

A global block is basically a block from every single wiki on Wikia. Only a Wikia staff member knows why he was blocked. So basically, yes. You can ask about why he was blocked, since the reasons are not usually clear. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 14:31, June 16, 2014 (UTC)

Wikia blocks editors when they rename their accounts, while the renaming is in progress. Vínci is no longer blocked. - LostInRiverview ^{talk ~ blog} 16:25, June 16, 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't know that. I guess I learned something then. Nikel _{Talk – Vote!} 04:09, June 17, 2014 (UTC)

User:Safe&Sound27

I blocked this user given the very likely ILS5 sock. However, I was quite surprised to see LiR not blocking this one, so I wanted to make sure if LiR didn't block this one for a reason, and thus postponed deleting the contributions. MILK FOR THE UNYUUFEX, FLAT CHEST FOR THE CUTENESS THRONE, SKULLS FOR THE SKULL PROBES (user talk:Mathetesalexandrou) 23:16, June 16, 2014 (UTC)

..maybe? A lot of the pages the user created were previously deleted, going through the deletion logs. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 23:52, June 16, 2014 (UTC)

I honestly didn't notice. I guess my guard was down. This is like the dozenth sock they've created... do you think we would be able to talk the VSTF or staff to start taking action against her? -- LostInRiverview ^{talk ~ blog} 01:08, June 17, 2014 (UTC)

But what can they do about it, really? I mean, we blocked her IPs, all with account creation disabled. All her accounts had autoblock enabled, so they would naturally carry over to any IP she attempted to use. The only thing I can think of is to disable account creation for the IP range LiR blocked not too long ago... --k6ka (talk | contribs) 01:20, June 17, 2014 (UTC)

They would have more resources available to monitor her IP addresses and to quickly address block evasions. We have requested their help in the past and their methods have been relatively effective, at least for a time. When Corymach was block evading, we were able to contact staff and have all his sockpuppets shut down, and he wasn't able to register new ones for quite a long while afterwards. -- LostInRiverview ^{talk ~ blog} 03:20, June 17, 2014 (UTC)

I was about to give you a note about this user is ILS5, but unfortunately my school service arrived. (-_-) Also, I noticed her (redundant) fanons is still there. And you guys can easily to delete it, but once she's back with another sockpuppet, she'll recreate them again. Should we keep them? ~~.ThePeculiarMe | (talk to me) | (my mistakes) 10:04, June 17, 2014 (UTC)

The only sure way to prevent her from recreating them is to create-protect the pages. However, I'm a bit hesitant on doing so, since it might scare off or frustrate potential new fanon writers if they see we locked them out of a page title they wanted to use. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 10:35, June 17, 2014 (UTC)

According to what Nikel said on this page deleting userpages is more or less the same as blanking the page. So deleting the pages wouldn't really make a difference. What I don't understand is how ILoveSims5 keeps getting around her blocks even with account creation disabled - not to mention her IP being temporarily blocked.

Another thing I don't understand is why she keeps coming back here, when she's got her own fanon Sims wiki. I've looked at her wiki myself and it isn't in very good shape. Why doesn't she upgrade her wiki, instead of coming here all the time? She should know by now that sockpuppetry and her pathetic requests for unblock aren't going to get her very far. Also she's underage.

The Wiki staff have really got to do something about ILS5 C.Syde (talk | contribs) 10:37, June 17, 2014 (UTC)

I'll try to talk to her in fanfiction.net. Although fanfiction.net is for reading and give a review, I can't interfere that. But, I'll see what I can do. ~~.ThePeculiarMe | (talk to me) | (my mistakes) 10:43, June 17, 2014 (UTC)

Looks like I can't :| ~~.ThePeculiarMe | (talk to me) | (my mistakes) 10:58, June 17, 2014 (UTC)

I don't think we should try to talk to her anymore, since it's clear she either isn't capable of understanding what we tell her, or she refuses to listen. And the staff won't get involved unless we ask them to, since sockpuppetry isn't against Wikia's terms of use. They also don't know that she's underage. -- LostInRiverview ^{talk ~ blog} 18:45, June 17, 2014 (UTC)

Too bad we can't just reason with her - doing so doesn't seem possible at this time considering that she's showing no signs of being able to or wanting to reason with us. C.Syde (talk | contribs) 05:54, June 18, 2014 (UTC)

We're just wasting our breath trying to communicate with her. So far she hasn't actually tried to engage in a discussion with us, other than these pointless, unconvincing, and unrelated unblock requests - [6] [7] [8]. Judging by her actions she never read any of the help and advice pages I linked to her, nor did she ever read our messages about how sockpuppetry is forbidden on The Sims Wiki (with the exception of bots and [I think] test accounts that are declared beforehand).

It may seem like I'm not TSW:AGF on her, but AGF can only go so far. It is important to note that some people do edit wikis in bad faith and it's important to know where to draw the line before you stop assuming good faith. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 11:58, June 18, 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if this will help. I'm quite possitive that ILS5 has a fictionpress account. A few weeks ago, someone from this wiki messaged me on there todo with my fanons. Based on the content of her profile page, I'm sure that this person is ILS5. She keeps trying to make conversation with me about sims or the show Friends. A few times I've had to turn my private messaging off, to stop her from messaging me, because I want my fictionpress to be strictly for stories and reviews.

If it helps the situation here, I could just this once break my rule about socialising, and explain to her what she has done wrong on this wiki. Even though I am a little conserned about doing so, since FictionPress has no moderators to handle the situation if it all goes wrong. WayfinderOwl (talk) 17:35, June 18, 2014 (UTC) 

But we've already contacted her multiple times on her talk page, including a very detailed explanation on what she did wrong, how templates work, how to use them, and why she was blocked for sockpuppetry. She didn't listen. You can try, but I frankly doubt she'll listen, judging by her persistent block evasion despite our best efforts to talk to her and even give her a second chance, to which she apparently rejected and doomed herself to an effective perma-ban by the community. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 17:55, June 18, 2014 (UTC)

@C.Syde65 Deleting pages isn't the same as blanking them. Deleting a page makes it only accessible to administrators. Deleting a page also removes it from the search bar and removes it from search engine results. Also, simply blanking a page doesn't hide the previous revisions in the page history. Deletion is used to enforce wiki-quality by removing pages that would otherwise bring the quality of the wiki down. Deletion is also used to hide malicious content, such as personal information posted without permission or extremely hurtful comments. Also, deletion can also be used to "selectively delete certain revisions from a page without deleting and recreating the whole dang page". Selective deletion is used to remove what I mentioned above, such as extremely hurtful edits made to an existing page. The page is deleted and then quickly undeleted. When an administrator is undeleting a page, he/she can select which revisions will be restored and which won't. With this method, the admin can simply not restore the malicious revisions, therefore removing it from the public eye without violating Wikia's license by copy and pasting the text without including the authors in the page history. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 18:05, June 18, 2014 (UTC)

Okay then. Still I think we should contact the wiki staff about ILS5 because it seems that she isn't going to give up evading her block, even if her doing so doesn't lead to successful results - as she should already know. -- C.Syde (talk | contribs) 03:53, June 19, 2014 (UTC)

Guys, I've contact ILS5. However, it seems that she's being mean to me. Well, I being mean to her but testing her that she's somewhat sensitive or forgiveful, but she's not. Plus, her behavior I'm judging for is she's want to be popular and she's somehow childish compared to her age. ~~.ThePeculiarMe | (talk to me) | (my mistakes) 02:00, June 21, 2014 (UTC)

I think it's for the best if everybody just pushes this to one side for now. She's proven on countless occasions that she's unwilling to co-operate and, underage or not, there's no point us even continuing to talk about this when we all know that nothing is going to change. Revert, block, ignore. Also admins, please remember to disable talk page access for any socks that you come across so she doesn't waste our time with unblock requests. Hopefully the Verizon FiOS blocks will slow her down (not betting on it, Verizon spit out new ranges like they're the latest craze). Lost Labyrinth • (c) • (b) 02:06, June 21, 2014 (UTC)

Agreed with ThePeculiarMe, and while I began writing this, Lab as well. -- C.Syde (talk | contribs) 02:08, June 21, 2014 (UTC)

Creating an administrator's noticeboard

I've noticed that we don't really have a place for users to request help from administrators. Currently, if a user needs something done, they have to contact a specific administrator who may or may not respond to the request in a timely fashion. Often, other active administrators will just jump in and take care of the issue, leaving the first administrator with messages on their talk page but their job already completed. Additionally, this talk page has begun to move away from being an administrator discussion zone, to being a place where users bring up issues they feel require administrative insight or action. I think this could all be solved by the creation of an administrator's noticeboard.

Unlike Wikipedia's noticeboard, this noticeboard would handle nearly all requests that a user might make of administrators. Wikipedia breaks up a lot of their requests into separate pages, but as this wiki is substantially smaller, I feel this is unnecessary. The noticeboard would handle all of the following (plus more, possibly):

• Speedy delete requests
• Page lock and unlock requests
• Bot requests
• Other requests for administrator help or input from members of the general community

We could, if we wanted, also fold spam and vandalism reports into the general noticeboard. There may or may not be merits for keeping it separate.

Note that the noticeboard wouldn't be the location for discussion amongst the administrators. If a discussion is particularly relevant to the community at-large and open to contributions from the community, it should be held in the Community Discussions forum. If a discussion is largely relevant only to administrators, or else should not be open to public comment for whatever reason, it should take place on the admin portal talk page. The APTP will continue to be the home for:

• Discussing possible blocks against users
• Discussions amongst the administrators about locking or unlocking pages
• Discussion of potential sockpuppet accounts
• Other matters of communication between the administrators.

So, to summarize, the Administrator's Noticeboard would be a place where non-administrators can contact the administrators regarding questions or concerns, where the Admin Portal Talk Page would be a place where administrators can discuss official business amongst themselves.

Thoughts? -- LostInRiverview ^{talk ~ blog} 04:35, June 19, 2014 (UTC)

Excellent idea! -- C.Syde (talk | contribs) 05:45, June 19, 2014 (UTC)

I'm cool with it, though I should note that Wikipedia's administrator's noticeboard isn't usually a page of joy. There's even a page with advice for using the page. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 19:14, June 19, 2014 (UTC)

Personally I do feel that perhaps non-admins shouldn't really be getting involved with discussions regarding blocks and socks due to the sensitive nature of them and I do feel the admins should have a better way of communicating with one another. I feel this proposal is a step in the right direction and therefore I support it. Lost Labyrinth • (c) • (b) 23:55, June 19, 2014 (UTC)

Reply to K6ka: Perhaps true, but Wikipedia is several orders of magnitude larger than TSW. The Noticeboard here on the wiki won't need to be nearly as formal. -- LostInRiverview ^{talk ~ blog} 00:48, June 20, 2014 (UTC)

Reply to Lost Labyrinth: While I understand your opinion, I still feel that non-admins or at least long term experienced users who can be trusted (e.g. myself) need a better way of communicating and giving opinions - without undermining the administrators or trying to handle situations themselves. If you understand what I'm trying to say. -- C.Syde (talk | contribs) 05:42, June 20, 2014 (UTC)

---

I am an impatient person, and I see the creation of this noticeboard as being pretty un-controversial, so I've created the noticeboard. There are a few questions that remain, namely:

1. Should we lock this talk page to administrators only?
2. Should we eliminate the report page and direct those reports to the AN?
3. How will we encourage use of the new noticeboard?

Personally speaking, I think the answer to the first two questions should be "yes." Setting up the AN means we can have open administrative discussions there if needed, whereas this page can be reserved for admins-only discussions where public input is not proper (e.g. block/unblock discussions). In the event that a user thought an Admin Portal Talk Page discussion should be open to the public, they could make such a request on the AN, and we could move the discussion to the forum... but I don't see this happening very often, and that option would be left open only as a check against admins having closed-door discussions that affect the greater community. I also think that the reports page is redundant now, and it's easier to direct users to a single page to make all admin inquiries and reports.

As for the third question, I think would be helpful to link to the AN from the welcome messages. Something like "if you have any problems and need administrator assistance, contact us on the administators' noticeboard" or something like that. It would also be useful to have a link to the AN on The Sims Wiki:Administrators, in the Community Discussions forum page, and maybe even at the top of the Admin Portal talk page. If we choose to keep the report feature, we should cross-link between the two, as well. Any other ideas? -- LostInRiverview ^{talk ~ blog} 00:11, June 21, 2014 (UTC)

1. Yes. Discussions of a sensitive nature such as blocks shouldn't be open for the community at large to just wander into.
2. Makes sense on a practicality level.
3. Welcome message (that could do with a revamp anyway), linking via the Admin Portal main page. That's all I got right now. Lost Labyrinth • (c) • (b) 00:20, June 21, 2014 (UTC)

Here's another thing I can suggest - we can make The Sims Wiki:Report similar to Wikipedia's Administrator Intervention against Vandalism. TSW:Report should only be used for blatant, obvious cases of vandalism. On Wikipedia this noticeboard is extremely busy, requiring three bots to maintain it. Users come in with reports, and an admin reviews them and blocks when necessary. If blocked, the report is removed by a bot - if not, the admin leaves a message explaining why the report was declined (i.e. insufficiently warned, not enough edits, or complex abuse should've been reported to WP:ANI.

Also, what should the archive system for TSW:AN be? If you look at WP:ANI.... the archives are insane. I'm an impatient person like LiR is, though in terms of archiving I prefer regular, routine archiving, and adding gradually to the archives instead of all at once. Of course, WP:ANI is busy, with hundreds of users frequenting the noticeboard and even more watching it. A bot carries out archival tasks and another bot signs unsigned comments... but enough of the bots. Our TSW:AN isn't going to come close to being that busy, but it's still worth a thought.

Just a word from an editor that has been on WP:ANI before. Don't believe me? Search the archives for my username. It's not a fun or pretty place, but every editor, at some point in their WikiCareer, does end up on that noticeboard. At least we don't need an Arbitration Committee, do we? --k6ka (talk | contribs) 00:30, June 21, 2014 (UTC)

Note: Just a thought I had. I think that The Sims Wiki:Report could be used as a "first step" for vandals. Like, for example, if ILoveSims5 vandalized the wiki, warned several times, and persisted, she would get reported on that page. A temporary block would be placed and for the duration of the block, we sleep well at night.

Now, if ILS5 comes back to vandalize the templates again, gets blocked, and creates a sockpuppet to evade the block... that's where we "escalate". That's when she'd go on the administrator's noticeboard. I can get why non-admins shouldn't be discussing blocks, but I think sockpuppetry is something that can go on the administrator's noticeboard instead of the APTP, since having an extra pair of eyes to look out for sockpuppets is always helpful. Non-sysops can report a sockpuppet on the AN and alert the administrators quickly. I can only catch the most obvious of socks - so don't throw me into the laundry hamper. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 00:35, June 21, 2014 (UTC)

The report page here isn't active, and it can go several days or weeks without new reports. So, I don't think it needs bot maintenance. The lack of activity is, I think, another reason to just combine it with the AN... why confuse users with multiple locations to report things. "Does this belong on the Report page or the AN?" It's easier to just allow all reports to be placed in the same location.

As for archival... It probably makes sense to keep the noticeboard free of outdated messages. Accomplishing this would require admins to mark discussions as resolved, so they can be archived in a timely manner afterwards. We could modify {{Resolved}} to be placed at the top of sections that have been dealt with, and we can archive those sections on an as-needed basis.

As for sockpuppets... I think the reports themselves should go on the Noticeboard, but discussion of outcomes should be strictly limited to the APTP since it's discussing blocking of a user. That's if a discussion is even necessary... if a user reports an obvious sock on the AN, an admin could block the sock without needing to start a broader discussion. -- LostInRiverview ^{talk ~ blog} 00:42, June 21, 2014 (UTC)

What about the opinion I had above? -- C.Syde (talk | contribs) 00:38, June 21, 2014 (UTC)

^{(edit conflict)} Another comment: Just came to mind that, since AN isn't going to be a place of sunshine and rainbows, there has to be a time where the discussion has to be closed. On Wikipedia's administrator's noticeboard, there are templates that can be used by uninvolved editors to "close" a discussion. It's usually an admin, though non-admin closures are not uncommon. Go there right now, see the "The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it" things? Closures are used when the discussion really needs to end, but it's too early for archiving. Archiving is used for old discussions, closing is used for fresh discussions that need the anvil dropped on them. The templates Wikipedia uses are Template:Archive top and Template:Archive bottom. Should we incorporate that, in case we ever need to stop blood and tears? --k6ka (talk | contribs) 00:40, June 21, 2014 (UTC)

We could use the same template to archive and to close discussions, it would just take a bit of modification. I don't think we need separate templates for both cases. This is an example of where TSW is not Wikipedia and where we don't need to duplicate their level of complexity when it comes to managing the AN. -- LostInRiverview ^{talk ~ blog} 00:44, June 21, 2014 (UTC)

Alright then! I assume we'll redirect The Sims Wiki:Report to The Sims Wiki:Administrators' noticeboard. {{Resolved}}... is there an {{Unresolved}}? Oh, and by "the same template", do you mean we simply use {{Resolved}} and the non-existent {{Unresolved}} to close discussions? --k6ka (talk | contribs) 00:50, June 21, 2014 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't know. I think you could have a template that handles all of this. Maybe we could call it "{{Closed}}", and have the parameter stipulate the manner in which it was closed: {{Closed|resolved}} for sections that have been decided, {{Closed|locked}} for sections that need to be locked down for whatever reason, etc. I also don't see why we can't just use one template without any special parameters to catch all of them. Any archival we would do would probably be manual and not bot-based, so the person archiving would only have to look at the date of the last message in the section to see whether the section is ready to be archived. -- LostInRiverview ^{talk ~ blog} 01:07, June 21, 2014 (UTC)

Admins are the only ones that ought to be discussing blocks, but us non-admins with a strong history of contributions (both with a high quality and quantity) should at least get the basic picture, with or rather without directly discussing blocks.

Non-admins with a lower editing experience probably don't have the need to be talking about these sorts of things. When I first joined the Sims wiki, I intended to be an editor and nothing else. So those things wouldn't have concerned me anyway.

But as editors become more experienced, some may start to feel the need to know more about what's happening in the Sims wiki. These users are usually - 1) rollbackers, 2) experienced users both with a higher quantity of and high quality edits, 3) potential future admins. -- C.Syde (talk | contribs) 01:10, June 21, 2014 (UTC)

You would be able to do this even if the talk page is locked. For non-administrators, the page would be readable but you wouldn't be able to edit it. -- LostInRiverview ^{talk ~ blog} 01:15, June 21, 2014 (UTC)

I guess I should have noted I was already aware of that. But what if non-admins felt that they desperately needed somewhere to write info based on what I described? What are we supposed to do instead? -- C.Syde (talk | contribs) 01:21, June 21, 2014 (UTC)

I must admit, I have to agree with C.Syde on this one. Really, a key for "training" to become an administrator is to know how the processes work. By participating in discussions, users can gain experience and knowledge on how the admins resolve disputes and what they do in specific circumstances. While you can obviously say "People can lurk", it's different. Some people learn just by reading it, but most of us learn best when we actually do it. Get a yellow belt in taekwondo to go to their first tournament and they gain experience. Get a black belt to go to their first tournament and... things turn ugly, because they had no experience. Kinda like trying to teach someone how to walk when they're 21, when you should've taught them when they're just a toddler. Mistakes is how we learn. If a non-admin gets the wrong idea or makes a mistake, that shouldn't be reason for us to lock the page from further non-admin editing. That's not how people learn and that's certainly not going to help potential admins hiding amongst the crowd. If we are going to elect future admins to replace those that retire or are unavailable, it's important that they know how it works and that they get their feet wet. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 01:31, June 21, 2014 (UTC)

That's exactly what I've been trying to say. I feel that my feet are a little dry, and I need to gain more experience. But if the page gets locked (which I now believe shouldn't) then how do we learn if we can't do? -- C.Syde (talk | contribs) 01:36, June 21, 2014 (UTC)

^{(edit conflict)} Also, I find that having an "admin-only talk page" gives the idea that "administrators are in charge of the wiki", when The Sims Wiki:Administrators clearly says that admins are equal to all other users on the wiki. They're just users who have a few extra buttons to click. I get the fact that some pages do need to be locked and limited to only administrators, such as MediaWiki pages. But discussion is different. Discussion is the engine behind the entire wiki, and the nature of a wiki is that anyone is welcome to contribute. Therefore, I find an "admin-only talk page" to contradict this very statement that admins are equal to all other users. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 01:37, June 21, 2014 (UTC)

You add it to the noticeboard. The noticeboard would be where non-sensitive discussions will take place from now on, or else they would be in Community Discussions. The admin portal talk page would be reserved for those things too sensitive to leave open to regular contributors, like user blocking. I simply cannot agree with letting regular users participate in those matters. If regular users are allowed to discuss blocks and unblocks, then they might start proposing blocks and unblocks, despite being in no position to take action in those cases. On top of that, if they're allowed to discuss, then it becomes a matter of community consensus, and community consensus should not ever be used to decide whether a person is or is not allowed to edit the wiki. Period. full stop. -- LostInRiverview ^{talk ~ blog} 01:44, June 21, 2014 (UTC)

As well, the concept of admins and regular users being equal to each other applies most of the time. But there are instances where it's not practical to treat them the same. One such instance is with user blocking. The reality is that admins are in charge of blocks - that's the way it has been and is and always should be. To say different just because "admins and regular users are equal" completely ignores the reality of the situation. The real nature of equality is that admins and regular users have the same rights and responsibilities - they are meant to be protected by policies and obligated to follow policies as well. But there are real matters that do occur where a regular user simply doesn't belong. That's the cold hard truth. -- LostInRiverview ^{talk ~ blog} 01:44, June 21, 2014 (UTC)

Yes but some of us experienced editors feel that we are simply more than just regular users, if we're admins or not. Locking this page is just going to cause protests and in actual fact I believe that it will undermine those who have a good editing experience or are planning to become admins in future.

P.S. I don't think it does ignore the reality of the situation. I mean, admins still have their admin tools so they can still do more than regular users can. -- C.Syde (talk | contribs) 01:47, June 21, 2014 (UTC)

An experienced non-admin should still have some suggestions, and although I understand that a non-admin shouldn't start proposing a block, I still stand by my previous comments. -- C.Syde (talk | contribs) 01:53, June 21, 2014 (UTC)

Whilst discussion is encouraged, it's just not meant to be for some topics. Discussion regarding somebody's block and whether or not they should be blocked is absolutely not one of them. Blocking users was, is, and always will be strictly an administrative decision. Blocking somebody is not to be taken lightly and we can't just let anybody have a say in that because the weight that it carries can mean the difference between being able to edit and not being able to edit the wiki. If users want to learn from the admins then they can just as easily observe and learn from that; that's fine but as far as I'm concerned, allowing non-admins to get involved in discussions like these is not a good idea. Lost Labyrinth • (c) • (b) 01:56, June 21, 2014 (UTC)

^{(edit conflict for the millionth time...)} Personally I'm not ready to put the brakes on yet. The thing is, while admins are indeed in charge of blocks (being technically the only users who can impose blocks), I'm not exactly sure why consensus isn't a tool for deciding what to do with a misbehaving user. While I do get TSW isn't Wikipedia -

• sigh at another Wikipedia reference, but hey, we pretty much stole this idea from Wikipedia, right?* but community consensus is basically how sanctions are decided. The community as a whole can, together, impose blocks and bans towards other users. If I vandalized the wiki heavily, but a crat was hesitant on de-sysopping me because I simultaneously uploaded helpful images and improved an article to near-Featured Article status, I don't see why the community as a whole, who compose the majority of the content here, can't see fit to have my mop and pail removed because of my abuse of the tools. Doesn't matter whether I founded this wiki or not - I must pay the price of punishment.

And even if you disagree with the above... I still find locking other editors out to be detrimental to, erm, "administrator training". It's one thing to discuss sanctions against a user, and it's another to discuss sanctions but simultaneously have the tools to just end the whole debate and block the user. There's a reason why you don't get into the driver's seat of a car before you take a test. There's a reason why you don't fly a real plane before undergoing extensive pilot training. I say the same goes here... there's a reason why we don't give such dangerous tools out without first knowing when and when not to use the tools. Blocks aren't as simple as they seem - you can get into a heated dispute with an editor that, at first glance, might seem to require a long WikiBreak, but has also been a helpful, crucial editor. In that case, try dispute resolution. Sometimes, a block can be the most difficult thing an admin has to do, even if sometimes it's the easiest. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 02:01, June 21, 2014 (UTC)

@Lab What I said about how people learn differently. It's different when you just look at someone do something than it is actually doing it. It seems easy when you kick in taekwondo, but when you actually do it, reality dawns on you. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 02:01, June 21, 2014 (UTC)

@Lab: That's a good point. I like that.

Indeed some situations should not be taken lightly and getting involved in discussions like these is not a good idea, I agree.

But I still think that locking the page will contradict this very statement that admins are equal to all other users. Also how are non-admins supposed to become more experienced? If some of us are going to become admins in future then we need to have better knowledge on what discussions we ought to be participating in.

So basically for the most part, I still agree with K6ka's opinion. -- C.Syde (talk | contribs) 02:03, June 21, 2014 (UTC)

You don't gain experience by jumping headlong into situations that you're not prepared for. The reason we don't just promote any old editor who wants to be an administrator is because you have to demonstrate that you're able to handle these situations. You demonstrate this by being level-headed and participating in non-sensitive things, but you don't prove this by getting involved in things you don't understand, or becoming a vigilante and fighting against sockpuppets and arguing for blocks against users. Locking the page also doesn't defy the idea of equality, because equality doesn't mean that everyone is the same. Equality means that everyone has the same rights, and they do. But, admins are not the same as regular users because admins have extra tools and extra responsibilities, and are held to a higher standard. Their discussions are held to a high standard too, and until a regular user proves that they're ready, I don't think it's unfair to ask that they leave the big problems to those people who have the faith of the community to handle the problems. As for this idea of experience... Users demonstrate their readiness for promotion by being level-headed, active, engaged in community discussions, and helpful to the wiki. Users don't demonstrate this readiness by jumping headlong into situations that they don't understand, or acting as a vigilante against suspected sockpuppets.

Also, user blocking and sysop demotion are not the same thing. In the hypothetical case of sysop demotion, that would be a community discussion because it was community consent that promoted that sysop in the first place. - LostInRiverview ^{talk ~ blog} 02:22, June 21, 2014 (UTC)

That is most certainly true. I'm not going to say that I disagree on that.

Would I be correct in saying that there are some users out there that are ready for something but aren't sure what they're ready for? And that there are users out there that may seem much more level-headed than they actually are? -- C.Syde (talk | contribs) 02:42, June 21, 2014 (UTC)