The Sims Wiki talk:Policy

Archives 1 · Admin policies archive

Editing user pages

Based on recent experiences I would like to suggest a policy stating that it is forbidden to edit other users user pages and also forbidden to remove content from their talk pages. --Duskey^talk 01:31, September 20, 2010 (UTC)

Support, with limitations - I agree, except in the following cases:

1) When there is content on a page that violates policy

2) When a user allows another user to edit their user page (for whatever reason)

3) when a user wishes to remove a comment they leave on another user's talk page

I'd like to see a proposed policy write-up before I voice my complete support for the idea, but the general concept is good. -- Patrick (LostInRiverview) (talk)(blog)(random page) 01:46, September 20, 2010 (UTC)

I decided to write something up; what do you think?

---

The following rules apply to user pages only:

1. Content on a user's user page cannot contain profanity, and cannot openly attack other users.
2. Links leading off Wikia are heavily scrutinized, and links to websites containing pornography or profane material will be removed and that editor will receive appropriate penalties for profane materials.
3. An editor's user page can only be edited by that editor, unless:
   1. That editor allows another person to edit their user page - this must be stipulated in the talk page of the other user.
   2. Another user edits a user page to remove profanity or attacks against others.
   3. An editor acts in good faith to fix broken links, templates etc. that may have been broken due to improvements on the wiki.
4. Penalties for wrongly editing another person's user page shall vary depending on the severity, and whether the edits made violated any other wiki policies.

The following rules apply to user talk pages only:

1. Each user may decide to delete or archive any comment left on their talk page at any time.
2. No user may delete content on another user's talk page, unless the content being deleted violates The Sims Wiki policies.
3. Users should not edit the spelling, grammar or punctuation of another user's comment on a talk page.
4. Personal attacks, profanity, or links to irrelevant or profane websites on talk pages will not be allowed.

---

It seems a bit bare to me, so feel free to add or delete anything from the list above. -- Patrick (LostInRiverview) (talk)(blog)(random page) 12:34, September 20, 2010 (UTC)

It seems like overkill to me. Linking to "profane materiel" is already covered in Wikias TOS and profanity is covered by our general policies. I was thinking something more like this:

1. User pages and user talk pages are personal pages

• Editing another users user page is forbidden and will result in a warning unless it is a good faith edit (Removing vandalism/spam or fixing broken links, images or templates)
• Removing content from another users user page or talk page is forbidden and will result in a warning.

--Duskey^talk 21:07, September 20, 2010 (UTC)

Update

Nothing much has developed here, but since this 'rule' is generally well-accepted, I've added it to our Guidelines. If people think this rule should be officially added, feel free to restart discussion. -- LostInRiverview ^{talk · blog} 06:59, December 16, 2010 (UTC)

General Rules Contradiction

Has anyone ever noticed how two of the general rules contradict each other? Under point one, inserting profanity into a page results in a three-day block, but under point two, using profanity only results in a one-day block. Are there any proposals on what we should do about this? -- LostInRiverview ^{talk · blog} 15:09, October 1, 2010 (UTC)

Creation of Policies governing votes for Featured content

This proposal has been removed by its proposer.

I would like to propose the following policy governing nominations and votes for Featured Articles (FAs) and Featured Media items (FMs)

---

Featured Articles and Featured Media will be selected after a thorough review process consisting of nominations, quality assurance and voting.

Nomination and review

1. Only registered users who have logged at least 25 mainspace edits (prior to nomination) may nominate an article or media item for Featured status on the Featured Article or Featured Media nomination pages.
2. Nominations for the upcoming month's Featured article or media item must be placed on the Nomination page by the tenth day of the month. For example, an article being nominated for April Featured Article must be placed on the Nominations page by no later than March 10.
3. When nominating, all users must explain why the article or media item are worthy of Featured status. Users must demonstrate that the nominated item shows exceptional quality and highlights the best work created by members of The Sims Wiki. At any point, a user can question the quality of any article or media item nominated for Featured status.
4. In cases where the quality of a nominated article or media item is questioned, the quality must be demonstrated by the twentieth day of the month and a consensus must be reached that the item is of proper quality, or it will not be eligible to be selected as a featured item for the upcoming month. Any user may vouch for the quality of a nominated item, not just the person who nominated it.
5. Nominated items that are found to be short of featured media or article status will be removed from the Featured Media and Featured Article nomination pages and cannot be re-added for one month.

Voting

1. Starting on the twentieth (20th) day of the month and lasting until the end of the month, users with at least 25 mainspace edits can vote for qualified Featured Media or Featured Article nominees.
2. Votes must adequately explain why a particular nominated item is qualified for Featured status, and all votes must be signed - votes that lack these requirements may be deleted by administrators.
3. At the end of the month, the single article and single media item that received the greatest number of votes as well as the best justifications will be made into the Featured Article and Featured Media for the new month. If there are serious questions about the quality of an article or media item that received the most votes, the Administrators may review the winning item, and choose to instead give Featured status to a runner-up item of superior quality. However, this should be done only if the winning item is clearly not of Featured Article/Featured Media caliber.
4. All articles or media items that were nominated and that were not disqualified based on quality issues will remain on the Nominations page, and may be re-voted on until they either become Featured or lose quality to the point where they are no longer worthy of Featured status.

---

Comments

Feel free to take this apart and suggest your own ideas. Please don't make changes directly to what I've written above, however. Thanks. -- LostInRiverview ^{talk · blog} 03:57, October 26, 2010 (UTC)

Still looking for comments. -- LostInRiverview ^{talk · blog} 18:14, November 3, 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the featured content should be based on quality rather than popularity. But the system you've outlined above I think would take a lot of work in a short period of time. Perhaps we could separate the review and the voting to separate months or separate the reviewing from the nominations. What I mean by the latter is that articles could be submitted for review then given a quality rating and the nominations for featured article could come from the articles with the highest rating(s). Either way, once an article, etc., is deemed of good quality, I don't think it's necessary for voters to give an explanation. The only reason I could see that being necessary is if they wanted it featured for a specific month. Also, before we can implement this we need to outline the criteria for a quality article, which you mentioned on the community portal talk page. --a_morris (talk) 21:12, November 3, 2010 (UTC)

In a situation where items are submitted for review and given a quality rating, would that inhibit the ability of regular users to nominate items for FA/FM? Also, do you think that we should or could coordinate the establishment of criteria with a possible update to the MoS (if you think the MoS needs an update)? -- LostInRiverview ^{talk · blog} 21:32, November 3, 2010 (UTC)

Any user could nominate an item but there would be a limited number of articles that could be nominated. Although anyone could discuss the quality of an article, only an administrator would assign the article a rating. Yes, the criteria should be consistent with the MoS, though it does need updating. I've also been looking at how Wikipedia does it. --a_morris (talk) 22:07, November 3, 2010 (UTC)

I like that idea. I'm going to pull the policy proposal from here and start a new discussion in the Community Portal instead. Hopefully we can get some engagement this time around... -- LostInRiverview ^{talk · blog} 22:25, November 3, 2010 (UTC)

Policy for Usernames

Username policies

1. Usernames that are the same or very similar to the name of a premade Sim, game, neighborhood or item from The Sims series of games are not allowed.
2. Examples: a user cannot choose 'MortimerGoth' as a user name, since it is similar to Mortimer Goth, a premade Sim. Additionally, a user can't use 'The Sims 3' as a username, as it is identical to The Sims 3, a game title. A user with the name 'BellaGothRocks,' however would be allowed because it is different enough from Bella Goth.
3. This policy does not apply to users who are already editors on the wiki as of the date it is enacted.

---

Comments:

I've introduced this in reaction to a user named The Sims 3 Late Night (talk · contribs · editcount · block · modify rights · logs · block log). Please keep in mind that this policy would not have any effect on already-registered users, such as BobNewbie (talk · contribs · editcount · block · modify rights · logs · block log), Bella Goth (talk · contribs · editcount · block · modify rights · logs · block log), or others who are already registered contributors. -- LostInRiverview ^{talk · blog} 06:19, November 12, 2010 (UTC)

I have found it confusing. And now, with the new skin, I've noticed namespaces is not displayed as much. --a_morris (talk) 22:21, November 13, 2010 (UTC)

Revision to Voting Procedures

I would like to amend TSW's Voting Procedures to recognize the idea that most things shouldn't be voted on.

Current Language

Voting begins after a discussion has taken place and an adequate amount of time has passed so all views can be taken into account. A voting period last 2 weeks after the first vote is made, this would usually be the person creating the vote. All Voters and Voting Topics should follow the following format in order to maintain neatness.

Proposed Language

Voting as a means to determine consensus for a decision should be avoided unless absolutely necessary. If a vote must occur, it should be held only after significant time has passed for all viewpoints to be taken into account. To encourage discussion rather than voting, votes may only be initiated by Administrators or Bureaucrats. A voting period lasts 2 weeks after the vote is created, unless otherwise stated. All Voters and Voting Topics should follow the following format in order to maintain neatness.

Comments

I'll start by explaining why I'm advocating for the change. As TSW often attempts to emulate Wikipedia in our function, I think it's important that we observe one particular element of Wikipedia - Wikipedia is not a democracy. Rarely, if ever, are decisions put to up-or-down votes on Wikipedia because votes don't build consensus behind a particular issue, which is necessary especially when policies and major decisions are being made by the community. Take for example the vote held months ago regarding TSW merging with the Fanon Wiki, which barely failed the final vote. A person looking at that discussion would see that there was no consensus on merging versus not merging, but if the vote had been just a little more towards merging, it would have happened even though a near-majority would not have supported it.

The idea of voting on an issue is understandable for sake of fairness, but since we are all a community and we must support as much as possible an initiative, a vote really isn't preferable to developing agreement in the community.

Feel free to propose a change to my proposed wording, if you feel what I've written is too long or confusing. -- LostInRiverview ^{talk · blog} 04:51, December 14, 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the sentiment and wording. --a_morris (talk) 21:02, December 14, 2010 (UTC)

I support the proposal. GG (t) • (c) • (b) 08:57, December 16, 2010 (UTC)

Support. BobNewbie ^{talk • blog} 09:50, December 16, 2010 (UTC)

Support --Norman Average 10:21, December 18, 2010 (UTC)

Support. --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 10:30, December 18, 2010 (UTC)

I'll leave this open for an additional week for any opposition to come forward. If none does in that time, it will be considered adopted by consensus and will become official policy. If there are any objections to the procedure I am employing, please state them here and we will use a different procedure. - LostInRiverview ^{talk · blog} 06:54, January 3, 2011 (UTC)

The change has been adopted. -- LostInRiverview ^{talk · blog} 22:16, January 17, 2011 (UTC)