User talk:C.Syde65

Re: Talk:Unborn Baby Gorden
Done. -- Icemandeaf (talk) 00:41, October 12, 2014 (UTC)


 * I noticed that afterwards as well. I had to find a way to get to it so that I could remove it. It is done now. -- Icemandeaf (talk) 00:50, October 12, 2014 (UTC)

Regarding those Sims
How exactly can you determine that those Sims have corrupted faces? Since they have no character data, I can't really see how one could make that out. Feel free to tell me why and how. :) OoppDecks (talk) 08:52, October 13, 2014 (UTC)

Warning for Christiandominicballesteros25
I wanted to let you know that I removed the warning you gave to. While that user's edits were not constructive, they do not appear to be clearly in bad faith, so we should give them the benefit of the doubt. I would recommend issuing level one warnings if they continue to create pages like that or make unconstructive edits, as it seems they are merely inexperienced instead of deliberately harmful. --  LostInRiverview talk ~ blog 07:24, October 23, 2014 (UTC)

A note about linking
This is not a critical matter at all, and it hardly even means anything, but I'd just like to point out that there's absolutely no necessity to link every single word you know that has its own page, like in here. To me, it's not only slightly annoying, but also very pointless and irrelevant. Believe me; almost all users who read your messages have already known that Sim, interest, or teenager articles exist in this wiki, and I'm pretty certain no one ever clicked the link anyway (who wants to read about Stuff Packs when we're talking about neighborhood corruption?). Also, why do you keep insisting on using the redirect links, e.g. Sims instead of Sims, skills instead of skills, or power instead of power (aspiration) (it's not even the right link) ? Have you never seen me correcting these little things? Sure it's also a minor thing, but can't you just follow up?

Too many links can confuse someone, especially to those who are not familiar with the wiki. Only give a link to something that's absolutely relevant to the topic, like a link to a different thread in the forum (see, I don't need to link to forum because you know what it is and where to find it), or to a relevant thing (like when I linked "here" to the revision I wanted to point out). Maybe you meant well and wanted to complement everything for easier navigation, but in my opinion it's a sloppy job.

tl;dr: don't overuse links to other pages, especially in pages like Talk and Forum namespaces.  Nikel  Talk  –  Vote!  13:27, October 23, 2014 (UTC)

A notice
I'm sorry to have to do this, but you leave me no other choice. I feel like a formal warning is the only thing that is going to make you understand.

This edit is totally unacceptable. It could be construed as a personal attack against that user, and is a clear demonstration of a lack of good faith, which is precisely what you have been warned about countless times already. You claim to have "mastered" assumption of good faith (as if it's even possible to master something like that), but this and other examples clearly prove to myself and other administrators that you do not understand.

In addition, you have been warned before not to engage in speculation about sockpuppets, especially since you are not an administrator and are not in the position, official or otherwise, to do anything about them even if you discover them. To that end, and in response to the edit cited above, I have removed all references to ILoveSims5 and her suspected sock puppets and behavior from your sandbox page. If you add the information back, or engage in any further actions that demonstrate a lack of good faith, you risk being blocked from the wiki, having your rollback privileges revoked, or other actions as determined by the administrative team.

On behalf of myself and the other administrators, I will say this. We want you to be successful. We want you to learn from your mistakes and to grow as an editor. And if you do those things, you might be ready to become an administrator. But your actions now and in the past have demonstrated that you are unable to keep an open mind about things which you may not fully understand. You engage in behavior that is intended to emulate the perceived behavior of the administrators, yet you do not have a strong concept of why the administrators take the actions we do. You claim to understand the principle of Assume Good Faith, but your actions clearly show that your understanding of that concept is not adequate.

The best piece of advice I can give you is that you should never ever assume that you understand how or why something is the way it is. You should always keep an open mind and consider the possibility that you may be mistaken or that you are not understanding a particular issue or incident. It is the mark of the truly ignorant to assume that he knows everything. Or, to put it another way, "A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool."

Please open your mind to the possibility that you do not understand. Please allow yourself to learn. You cannot improve if you cannot learn.

--  LostInRiverview talk ~ blog 06:47, October 25, 2014 (UTC)
 * I have tried reasoning with you in gentler tones before and it has invariably failed. If you had simply followed instructions before, I would not have needed to warn you in stricter tones. Like the other administrators, I have only so much patience for repeated errors and a failure to learn. -  LostInRiverview talk • blog  •  contribs 02:21, October 27, 2014 (UTC)


 * Well you haven't done so this time. --  C.Syde  ( talk &#124;  contribs ) 02:27, October 27, 2014 (UTC)


 * Even I don't like doing this like this, but the thing is we've warned you several times already. On Wikipedia, warnings typically escalate as they are issued. We start off with a very friendly notification template, usually just to poke you and remind you that you did something incorrect. As the warnings go up the scale, they begin to use stricter language and makes it very clear that the behavior must stop, or else consequences will arise. The "Final warning" or "Only warning" templates are very short, straight to the point, and a very stern, no-nonsense tone. Warnings as strict as those are only given after the earlier, less harsh ones are given, where the user was given the opportunity to stop or clarify the situation, or in very extreme cases where earlier warnings are not helpful.


 * Imagine you are a tenant living inside an apartment building. One morning, the landlord posts a notice to every resident reminding them to pay their rent. If you don't pay your rent, the landlord may post a second notice, this time more directed towards you, asking you politely but firmly to pay the rent. If you still don't pay your rent, the landlord may talk to you in person, and he will be very firm and un-moving on the fact that you must pay the rent. And if you still don't pay, he may give you a last warning, and makes it very clear what the consequences are if you don't pay up. And if you still don't pay, they may evict you or do something else as a consequence to you not paying up. In this situation, it's pretty evident that "You should've paid when the landlord asked nicely".


 * Here, we have already warned you very nicely, IMO, about your behavior. The cold, stone-cold truth is, you haven't learned even though you think you may have. You have carried on with the unacceptable behavior, and it is time to escalate. If we continued to talk in 100% Mr. Goody Two Shoes tones without mentioning any possible consequences, you will never learn, because there is no consequence to your actions. --I am  k6ka  Talk to me!   See what I have done  02:28, October 27, 2014 (UTC)


 * What's that? Feels like I've been given an extremely hard whack with a stick! :P The information has gone from my sandbox and that was my final straw. I've got no straws left and no more interest or patience to continue what you've been requesting me not to do. Time will pass and I won't have repeated what I've been doing. This might sound crazy, but for what may seem like the first time, I'm actually being serious. --  C.Syde  ( talk &#124;  contribs ) 02:35, October 27, 2014 (UTC)
 * This isn't simply about sock puppet hunting. This is about your many previous issues:
 * The problem is that these issues paint a pattern that shows that you are not heeding the warnings you've been given and you are not learning from your mistakes. You can try to claim that you're improving but you need to demonstrate it in your actions. I have no problem with people making mistakes or breaking a rule accidentally - I do it, other administrators do it, other users do it; there's nothing wrong with making a mistake. However, there is something wrong with making the same mistake more than once, with failing to learn from your mistakes. And nothing you say is going to prove that you have learned. There is no list you can make or message you can send that will prove that you have learned. It can only be demonstrated through your actions, and with time. --  LostInRiverview talk • blog  •  contribs 04:54, October 27, 2014 (UTC)
 * The thing is that normally if I repeat a mistake, the reason for doing so is usually different.


 * The first mistake you mentioned - was because "rollback should only ever be used to revert vandalism and never good faith edits" at the time I didn't realize that the same rules applied in the sandbox.
 * The second mistake you mentioned - was because I wasn't paying very close attention to the fact that my contribution to the talk page wasn't on topic.
 * The third mistake you mentioned - was because I was being careless and didn't realize that the message was relevant to the talk page.
 * The fourth mistake you mentioned - was because I noticed a message that K6ka left on Eminem Fan 007's talk page before he became an admin and before Eminem Fan 007 was blocked. At the time I didn't realize that a non admin wasn't permitted to leave advice on the talk-page of an indefinitely blocked sock-puppet. At the time, it occurred to me that it was the advice that mattered, not the user giving the advice. I'd already given some similar advice to this anon earlier that month and no one had any objection.
 * The fifth mistake you mentioned - was because 1 I didn't see the point of that edit, and I wanted to silently revert it without it appearing in the recent wiki activity screen, because I was hoping that people were less likely to notice that I'd done so. 2 I wanted to revert a mistake that I'd made without it appearing on the recent wiki activity, because I didn't want to admit that it was I that had made the mistake, not the other way around. 3 I reverted a good faith edit by another experienced user, because the edit removed valuable and valid information from the wiki, whilst adding valuable and valid information.
 * The sixth mistake you mentioned - was because I didn't understand that it wasn't possible to lock the talk page to rollbackers and up only - I thought that the only users that shouldn't participate where the non rollbackers and unregistered users.
 * The seventh mistake you mentioned - was because at that time I was much less observant and wasn't paying much attention. I was in a very unobservant mood that day.
 * The eighth mistake you mentioned - was because I didn't understand that taking pre-cautions risked anti-good faith.
 * The cause for all those mistakes were not all the same. And I've left all those mistakes in the past - the only one I should be concerned about is the one I made two days ago. Most of those mistakes you mentioned were made over a month ago, and I don't think it's necessary to worry about month old mistakes. I would have expected a month to be enough for most people to leave those mistakes behind.
 * I'm happy to take your advice, but it's only been two days since I made the most recent mistake. And I have reminded myself countless times not to repeat any of those mistakes (I hadn't acknowledged the last one until two days ago). I know that shouldn't keep a list saying that I'm improving, but earlier this month I started new tactics and I hopefully I will have changed my patterns in a couple of months time. --  C.Syde  ( talk &#124;  contribs ) 05:48, October 27, 2014 (UTC)

The first mistake you mentioned - was because "rollback should only ever be used to revert vandalism and never good faith edits" at the time I didn't realize that the same rules applied in the sandbox. This is where I must say that some "common sense" should've been used here. Why are you randomly performing rollback on not just an innocent edit, but on a bureaucrat and sysop? Seems pretty foolishly daring, if you ask me. I'm not even sure why the heck you needed to do a rollback there - it was a waste of time, waste of Wikia's server space, and it caused a whole lot of trouble for nothing. On Wikipedia the only time I've ever used rollback in the sandbox (other than to quickly clean up after myself so the next person could play with it) was to revert someone adding links to porn sites. Content like that is one of the few things that are not acceptable in the sandbox and a rollback may be performed.

The second mistake you mentioned - was because I wasn't paying very close attention to the fact that my contribution to the talk page wasn't on topic. The Talkheader template at the top is your good friend and reminder. It reminds you to sign your posts, reminds you to be civil with other users, and reminds you that talk pages aren't for casual chit-chat. We have the forums for that. Want an online coffee shop on The Sims Wiki? The forums are there, sorry they don't serve coffee.

The third mistake you mentioned - was because I was being careless and didn't realize that the message was relevant to the talk page. I just skimmed over the text briefly and it looks relevant. The user was saying that they were going to do something in-game and try to fill in the rest of the page. It's not off-topic. I did tell you on your failed RFA that it's important to be careful of what you do on-wiki. And yet the careless rollback and many of the actions LiR highlighted above occurred after the RFA, after the advice was given to you, which is why we have the impression that you're not listening, especially considering that you've been saying for a long time that you have been improving, yet these things still happen. That's partly why we're... disappointed, right now.

The fourth mistake you mentioned - was because I noticed a message that K6ka left on Eminem Fan 007's talk page before he became an admin and before Eminem Fan 007 was blocked. At the time I didn't realize that a non admin wasn't permitted to leave advice on the talk-page of an indefinitely blocked sock-puppet. At the time, it occurred to me that it was the advice that mattered, not the user giving the advice. I'd already given some similar advice to this anon earlier that month and no one had any objection. The difference is that ILS5 had already been consulted two months prior. They still didn't listen and continued to create sockpuppet accounts, so it became time to revert, block, ignore. No amount of advice is going to get that user to stop, so why waste time doing it anyway?

The fifth mistake you mentioned - was because 1 I didn't see the point of that edit, and I wanted to silently revert it without it appearing in the recent wiki activity screen, because I was hoping that people were less likely to notice that I'd done so. This is what I call severe misuse of the tool, and probably a very poor record to have if you want to apply at RFA again. While rollback doesn't appear in Special:WikiActivity, it does appear in Special:RecentChanges, so trying to be sneaky here gives me a very bad impression on you. It demonstrates, through your actions, that you are not trusted with the tools. Secondly, if you don't see the point of an edit, why did you revert? When in doubt, do not revert. Edit confuses you? Don't revert it.

2 I wanted to revert a mistake that I'd made without it appearing on the recent wiki activity, because I didn't want to admit that it was I that had made the mistake, not the other way around. Um, just so we're clear, 1. That doesn't work, people who use recent changes can clearly see what you have did, and 2. You rollback yourself to quickly correct a mistake you have made, not to try and hide it from the world. People tend to lose trust in you if you try and cover up a mistake, since they get the impression you're trying to be "sneaky". Accept mistakes as a learning point, like such, but then you must learn from them. It's best if you didn't go around saying that you've learned from your mistakes and just remain silent, and let someone else decide. Because that's what I feel is the issue here - you think you've learned but your actions say the opposite.

3 I reverted a good faith edit by another experienced user, because the edit removed valuable and valid information from the wiki, whilst adding valuable and valid information. Um, what? "removed valuable and valid information to add valuable and valid information"? It was even made by an experienced user and in good faith. You know full well that rollback should only be used to revert bad faith edits or to mass-revert malicious edits providing a reason has been provided somewhere if needed. Even Wikia states that "[Rollback should only be used] for reverting vandalism. It should not be used to revert an edit that you merely disagree with."

The sixth mistake you mentioned - was because I didn't understand that it wasn't possible to lock the talk page to rollbackers and up only - I thought that the only users that shouldn't participate where the non rollbackers and unregistered users. I don't want this to hurt anybody, but it simply baffles me that someone would be requesting administrator tools without first reading up on them! Help:Administrator quickly goes through the admin tools, and Help:Page protection goes in depth on page protection. Before requesting sysop tools, users should first read over these pages and familiarize themselves with the tools. Not a very good impression if you try to get admin tools without first reading up on them, as it gives people the impression that you only want adminship to show off power, without even knowing what the tools do.

The seventh mistake you mentioned - was because at that time I was much less observant and wasn't paying much attention. I was in a very unobservant mood that day. Probably not the mood any editor should be when they edit the wiki. If you're going to publicly accuse someone of doing anything, you must be 100% sure. Not 70% sure, not 80% sure, 100% sure. A false accusation may look bad for yourself, but also for the wiki too. Did you know that Wikipedia has an editor stress meter for use on their userpages? It can help measure an editor's stress - if it's high, the meter will display just that and the editor should probably go on a WikiBreak. We don't have a meter like that, but we can do without one just by looking at your actions.

The eighth mistake you mentioned - was because I didn't understand that taking pre-cautions risked anti-good faith. Then, may I please direct to a Wikipedia user by the name MusikAnimal. He's an administrator now, but 4 years ago, someone's "precautions" almost drove him off the project, as he was falsely accused of sockpuppetry. Fortunately, he was resilient and put his faith in the project, but had it been another user Wikipedia might be short of one great editor. Precautions may seem important, but on a wiki it can potentially ruin us.

Now I know you're going to say "But I've learned and they're from the past". Please, just stop saying that! It won't help you in the slightest. As I've said before, your actions speak louder than words. You'll be more convincing in your actions than in your words. Please, may I suggest you go take some time off your day and off the wiki, carefully read through what we've given you, reflect slowly on the information, and then maybe read a Wikipedia essay, especially those about civility. These essays have been written by many experienced Wikipedia editors, and while The Sims Wiki is not Wikipedia, quite a bit of the advice there may be helpful here too.

I'm going to leave you with one final note:

What's that? Feels like I've been given an extremely hard whack with a stick! :P The information has gone from my sandbox and that was my final straw. I've got no straws left and no more interest or patience to continue what you've been requesting me not to do. Time will pass and I won't have repeated what I've been doing. This might sound crazy, but for what may seem like the first time, I'm actually being serious. If you're out of straws and ready to blow your top, a wiki is the worst place you can be on. Edit while you are at your best, not while angry, scared, or intoxicated.. If you are stressed out and not at your best, don't go on the wiki. Heck, probably best if you stayed away from your social media accounts too. A user that blows their top, loses patience, or is inattentive is better off in yoga class or in a sauna, rather than venting their anger out on a website where everything is permanently stored. Once you've cleared your mind of anger and stress, then you can sit down, focus on the text, and read our advice very carefully. You won't be able to do that with anger or stress, lest you cause disruption and public embarrassment, and providing your keyboard hasn't already absorbed it all helplessly until it looks like Mike Tyson gave it a smash.

I know this is a lot to take in, but while you might think you're on your last straw, we are on our last too. --I am  k6ka  Talk to me!   See what I have done  12:30, October 27, 2014 (UTC)


 * Before I stop saying anything else I just want to say this - I know that I often overestimate my experience, but some people actually do underestimate it, I can't say this about anyone in particular - and possibly not anyone here - but people have been known to underestimate my experience in the past, and when I'm like this, I can't tell the difference between truth and real underestimating. It's not so hard to understand, while not under stress, but this is about actually proving that I understand.


 * Okay, I will seriously consider what you and the others have said. Once my stress meter has gone down. --  C.Syde  ( talk &#124;  contribs ) 22:04, October 27, 2014 (UTC)

Chat
Could you please come to the chat? I'm from SimsPedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Owen1998 (talk) 09:44 25 October 2014 (UTC) - Please sign your comments with ~

RE: Your information on your Sandbox
Alright, I will remove this information from my sandbox. It honestly never occurred to me that this practice is generally not acceptable. If you used me as a reference then I apologize for getting you into the trouble, even though I never meant for anyone to follow me. My intention was not only to patrol any potential sockpuppets, but also to record which sockpuppet belonged to which original user, so you clearly weren't supposed to follow me in the first place because you shouldn't be involved in this sockpuppetry problems.

I dislike your tone when informing me this. Your compliance is understandable but your tone to me sounds more like an accusation of me being an incompetent administrator. Sure, I'm an admin, but I'm also a human who can make mistakes too. Becoming an admin doesn't automatically make everything you do right. I understand LiR's reasoning behind this; I just never thought that way. Even without you telling me, I'd probably remove it as soon as I notice that. It seems even after you were being told by LiR, you still cannot understand the concept of being an administrator.  Nikel  Talk  –  Vote!  10:09, October 26, 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid you misunderstood my warning to you, and in the process, essentially accused Nikel of violating good faith. He didn't, you did. Your violation was when you added information about an unconfirmed, unsuspected "sock" to your list of socks. Your sockpuppet investigation list as a whole was not a violation of AGF. But, you have been told time and time again to not get involved in sockpuppet investigations, and ILS5 ones in particular. As a result, I felt it necessary and proper to remove that information from your sandbox. You will no doubt realize that I never asked nor did I expect Nikel to also remove his list. This is because Nikel is an administrator and you are not. Nikel keeps a list of sockpuppets and their behavior in order to aid in further investigations. But since you are not an administrator, you are not allowed to participate in these investigations. Since you are not allowed to participate, you are not allowed to keep a list of suspected socks. Nikel is. It's that simple. --  LostInRiverview talk • blog  •  contribs 16:58, October 26, 2014 (UTC)

IRC
Jump onto the IRC channel when you get the chance. Ѧüя◎ґ (talk) 18:13, October 26, 2014 (UTC)

When you've got a second...
I'd really like to speak to you on IRC. If you don't get the chance to go on today, then that is okay. Just let me know when you're available to chat ~ thanks! Beds (talk - blog ) 21:00, October 27, 2014 (UTC)
 * That's alright - I understand. When you do get access, let me know so we can arrange something. Beds (talk - <font color="#512d17">blog ) 21:38, October 27, 2014 (UTC)

Reverting edits
Would you mind explaining to me why you did this? I can't see anything wrong, and, more to the point, it looks as if valid information was being added.
 * Fair enough. I don't really see how that can be mistaken as bad faith myself but whatever, and even if you did have an issue it would have been more appropriate to edit it or ask for a second opinion. Please be more careful next time.