The Sims Wiki talk:Admin Portal/resolved discussions 2016

User:EmiEm64 / User:Snauspi
Both these accounts are operated by the same person. I have not blocked either account because the account owner is not trying to disguise the connection, and the account owner has not acted in bad faith. I have advised the account owner via EmiEm64's talk page of our rule against sock puppetry, and await a response. If there is no response, we'll have to figure out how we want to proceed. --  LostInRiverview talk • blog  •  contribs 19:10, March 4, 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't feel that using Warning was a good idea, especially for a good faith user. A hand-written warning with emphasis on AGF would have been more appropriate. --I am  k6ka  Talk to me!   See what I have done  20:19, March 4, 2015 (UTC)


 * I think we should allow the user to continue editing, albeit just with one account. They haven't made any bad-faith edits, and just had an unawareness of the sockpuppetry rule, so it should be okay. &#8213; The  Tim   Man  (Infinite Histories • Galactic Crucibles • The Sims Wiki • Hallows Maleficent • Why I'm here in the first place ) 22:50, March 4, 2015 (UTC)


 * I stand with WikiBuilder's notion. No need to block both accounts when the user is most likely a good faith user. MILK FOR THE UNYUUFEX, FLAT CHEST FOR THE CUTENESS THRONE, SKULLS FOR THE SKULL PROBES  (user talk:Mathetesalexandrou) 23:58, March 4, 2015 (UTC)


 * If a block is issued on the unused account, use Socksoftblock. I disapprove of blocking both accounts, because the user has made no harmful edits. --I am  k6ka  Talk to me!   See what I have done  00:04, March 5, 2015 (UTC)


 * At the moment, I feel it's best to notify the user about multiple accounts ownership with a message instead of a warning template. They should, at least, understand that they remain consistent with one account. Blocking the other account may seem unnecessary, but I think it still has to be enforced even if the user hasn't done any bad-faith edits.  Nikel  Talk  –  Vote!  12:51, March 5, 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd like to wait for further input from the user themselves before doing anything but as long as they're not doing anything malicious I don't think the main account should be blocked.

From the history for those accounts, it appears that the user may have considered shifting to a different username, then either decided against it or realized that that wasn't how to do it. All contributions for User:Snauspi are on March 4, and that userpage was blanked on March 4 at 18:40, after which the user continued editing as User:EmiEm64. Between that and the user's history of good-faith edits, I think Warning was unnecessary. I've left them a message pointing them to the process for requesting a username change. Dharden (talk) 13:18, March 6, 2015 (UTC)
 * I think everything I wanted to say has been said above. The warning was a bit unnecessary, but as of yet, the user hasn't shown they have issues with it, so we should be thankful for that. A softly written message would be better suited. If the user wishes to continue editing under User:EmiEm64, they should perhaps look into getting User:Snauspi deleted or globally blocked; which they can request, via Wikia themselves. They should also keep us updated with their decision. ~ Beds (talk - blog ) 14:10, March 6, 2015 (UTC)

&
These two users have exactly the same avatar, and visit some of the same wikis. Both accounts joined TSW quite some time ago, so I'm surprised this wasn't noticed. I believe that one of the accounts is a sock of the other. As with AlexConnorBrown and VonBraun, I recommend a soft block to one of the accounts, preferably UndeadEuan, as EDR is probably the one this user wishes to use in future. &#8213; The  Tim   Man  (Infinite Histories • Galactic Crucibles • The Sims Wiki • Hallows Maleficent • Why I'm here in the first place ) 12:38, April 6, 2015 (UTC)
 * Left messages on both talk pages, we'll see what they choose to do. --  LostInRiverview talk • blog  •  contribs 14:09, April 6, 2015 (UTC)
 * They are owned by the same person. They are choosing to use Euan Del Rey from now on, so I've left a note on UndeadEuan specifying the connection. I did not block UndeadEuan, since there is nothing here to suggest any bad faith actions on their part. --  LostInRiverview talk • blog  •  contribs 20:08, April 6, 2015 (UTC)

Block on BucktonyII
was blocked indefinitely for adding fanon to canon articles, for which they have been warned in the past. I don't want to second-guess K6ka's judgment here, but I'm curious as to why he decided to issue an indefinite block even though the user had only been blocked once before (for three days). My concern is that in this case an indefinite block might be premature. --  LostInRiverview talk • blog  •  contribs 02:08, August 24, 2015 (UTC)


 * My other reasoning for the block was that they were a sockpuppet of Bucktony, which has been disabled by Wikia for reasons unknown. They have, however, revealed themselves to be underage (as evidenced by their user masthead), which may also be another reason for the block, albeit not an indefinite one. I chose indefinite because of the behavior evidenced by the original Bucktony, and they've had a history of doing the same thing about inserting false or fanon information into articles that goes back October 2014. --I am  k6ka  Talk to me!   See what I have done  02:17, August 24, 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, I think that's a good reason. I concur with the block, provided they're allowed to appeal (they currently have talk page access, so for the moment, they do have the ability to appeal). -  LostInRiverview talk • blog  •  contribs 02:30, August 24, 2015 (UTC)

Unblock Request for Ilovemondler
I've had a couple of users who have contacted me about EPICSIMSPLAYER who was blocked by Wikia. They attested that the account had been hacked by another sockpuppet/disruptive user, which is why the account was blocked. I must admit that it does seem that couple be a strong possibility; however, it is not possible for us to lift the ban on EPICSIMSPLAYER since Wikia issued the block. The users who contacted me have been trying to contact Wikia to lift the ban without any success, so they have asked if the ban on Ilovemondler may be lifted or at least the talk page so the user can make the request directly. I am not exactly sure what is the best approach for this matter. What do you all say? -- Icemandeaf (talk) 15:40, August 30, 2015 (UTC)
 * If I remember correctly, this Ilovemondler user was not very efficent when it came to their edits. They're a suspected sockpuppet of ILS5 and to be frankly honest, I think we're doing quite fine without ILS5 running around, causing havoc and making some mess. I strongly oppose to this user being unblocked. Furthermore, a CheckUser further confirms that they are just as suspicious as ILS5. ~ Beds  (talk - blog ) 17:11, August 30, 2015 (UTC)


 * Absolutely not. The consensus among administrators is that ILS5 is permanently blocked, not indefinitely blocked. Ilovemondler was blocked due to evidence that is privy to us administrators, and the CU that was conducted turned out positive. It also seems odd that EPICSIMSPLAYER is asking for that account to be unblocked so that she may edit from it, which just explicitly states that EPICSIMSPLAYER is a sockpuppet of ILS5. Thus, the block set on EPICSIMSPLAYER was correct and the consensus among administrators has not changed. Also, if Wikia refuses to lift the blocks, there is no reason why we should lift ours. --I am  k6ka  Talk to me!   See what I have done  17:25, August 30, 2015 (UTC)
 * Support providing access to talk page in order to make an appeal. This doesn't mean I'd support such an appeal, but I do think giving the option does no substantive harm.  LostInRiverview talk • blog  •  contribs 21:09, August 30, 2015 (UTC)