The Sims Wiki talk:Admin Portal

Weekly Facebook page stats

 * Split off of a discussion above - the above discussion has mostly ended.

The Sims Wiki
 * 69 monthly active users 4 since last week
 * 89 people like this 10 since last week
 * 1 wall post or comment this week 1 since last week
 * 113 visits this week 54 since last week

--a_morris (talk) 22:03, October 12, 2010 (UTC)


 * 82 monthly active users 15 since last week
 * 124 people like this 19 since last week
 * 4 wall posts and comments this week 4 since last week
 * 92 visits this week 30 since last week

--a_morris (talk) 22:22, October 25, 2010 (UTC)


 * 73 monthly active users down 9 since last week
 * 133 people like this up 9 since last week
 * 7 wall posts and comments this week up 3 since last week
 * 42 visits this week down 50 since last week

--a_morris (talk) 22:26, November 2, 2010 (UTC)

November 8, 2010


 * 71 monthly active users (down) 2 since last week
 * 140 people like this (up) 7 since last week
 * 0 wall posts and comments this week (down) 7 since last week
 * 37 visits this week (down) 5 since last week

November 15, 2010
 * 65 monthly active users (down) 6 since last week
 * 149 people like this (up) 9 since last week
 * 0 wall posts and comments this week no change since last week
 * 30 visits this week (down) 7 since last week

--a_morris (talk) 21:53, November 22, 2010 (UTC)


 * 79 monthly active users up 14 since last week
 * 153 people like this up 4 since last week
 * 1 wall post or comment this week up 1 since last week
 * 46 visits this week up 16 since last week

--a_morris (talk) 22:10, November 22, 2010 (UTC)


 * 98 monthly active users up 19 since last week
 * 161 people like this up 8 since last week
 * 1 wall post or comment this week no change since last week
 * 71 visits this week up 25 since last week

--a_morris (talk) 21:52, November 29, 2010 (UTC)


 * 109 monthly active users up 11 since last week
 * 173 people like this up 12 since last week
 * 2 wall posts and comments this week up 1 since last week
 * 47 visits this week down 24 since last week

--a_morris (talk) 22:02, December 6, 2010 (UTC)


 * 112 monthly active users up 3 since last week
 * 178 people like this up 5 since last week
 * 2 wall posts and comments this week no change since last week
 * 42 visits this week down 5 since last week

--a_morris (talk) 21:43, December 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * 113 monthly active users up 1 since last week
 * 183 people like this up 5 since last week
 * 1 wall post or comment this week down 1 since last week
 * 71 visits this week up 29 since last week

--a_morris (talk) 22:06, December 21, 2010 (UTC)

December 27, 2010
 * 113 monthly active users no change since last week
 * 186 people like this up 3 since last week
 * 5 wall posts and comments this week up 4 since last week
 * 45 visits this week down 26 since last week

--a_morris (talk) 00:10, January 1, 2011 (UTC)

January 3, 2011
 * 102 monthly active users down 11 since last week
 * 186 people like this no change since last week
 * 0 wall posts or comments this week down 5 since last week
 * 49 visits this week up 4 since last week

--a_morris (talk) 19:24, January 9, 2011 (UTC)

Food spam IPs
Lately, I've noticed that at least 2 IPs have been blocked for creating pages with "I like ", notably, which I blocked for 2 weeks under the suspicion that this is a spambot and , which Auror caught today engaging in the same pattern of behavior. Whatismyipaddress.com shows that both of these IPs are based in Sao Paolo, Brazil. I know we've had problems with Brazilian IPs before (like that case with the IP spamming the userpages of administrators), so I'm not ruling out an older vandal just yet but this could be someone different. I'd like to urge any administrator who catches an IP engaging in this type of behavior to issue a block immediately. 17:23, October 3, 2011 (UTC)

Indonesian IP addresses
Today we've had three cases of IP addresses vandalising userpages, in particular that of GeorgieGibbons. I've handed out a range block to 125.163.0.0/16 and 118.98.0.0/16, and 118.97.0.0/16 was blocked earlier today by Georgie. The funny thing is, these ip addresses show up from different places in Indonesia, one in Yogyakarta, one in Langsa and one in Jakarta. Despite this, I feel they are connected in some way due to their very similar vandalism parrtens and appearing close together. In an incident from earlier today one of them used a dynamic ip to change their address, so I wouldn't be surprised if the other two I blocked could do it as well, hence the rangeblock. I'd advise all admins to not hesitate in blocking for an extended period of time.
 * FWIW a few checks on whatismyipaddress.com show them all as proxy servers.
 * Sorry for this quite-unrelated question, but what's proxy server?  Nikel  Talk  07:56, October 8, 2011 (UTC)
 * hi nikel, proxy server is used for anonymous browsing on the internet so another internet user cant detect you where you come from, etc. the proxy server is usually used for bypass any internet restriction, like office firewall, or you know that "menkominfo" restriction blocked some internet address using "nawala". this proxy server is popular in our country because of that blocking rules but sadly some user use it on disruptive way like vandalize this wiki. --Wir.wiryawan 08:39, October 8, 2011 (UTC)
 * Ooh... but who and how do we use proxy server? Where can I use it? Is my computer proxy or not? (Well I sound very much clueless here)  Nikel  Talk  08:57, October 8, 2011 (UTC)\
 * Seeing as they're all proxies, the only thing we can really do is block them as we see them. Eventually, the vandal will probably run out of proxies (as they'd all be blocked) or they would just get bored and quit. 10:22, October 8, 2011 (UTC)
 * I've had it with this. If anymore proxies come up and they all follow the "slut" vandalism pattern, block the IP range for a couple of weeks. For example, if a proxy used 1.2.3.4 then block 1.2.0.0/16. The block list shows a few examples. 20:34, October 10, 2011 (UTC)
 * I've had it with this. If anymore proxies come up and they all follow the "slut" vandalism pattern, block the IP range for a couple of weeks. For example, if a proxy used 1.2.3.4 then block 1.2.0.0/16. The block list shows a few examples. 20:34, October 10, 2011 (UTC)

Another vandalism using proxy
i found this 2 ip address and  is vandalizing woohoo page and they use proxy program: ultrasurf to vandalize the wiki. i found it because i use the same program to connect the wiki, i cant connect the wiki without that program and when i blocked them, the result i blocked my self too. i think this is problem is one packet with indonesian vandalism.

I suggest we do ip range block based on that ip. but please if you block on another ip from that, check at my page and unblock me if im blocked too because im not the one whose vandalize this wiki. Wir.wiryawan 01:41, October 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * I just run some checks on both of the IPs and whatismyipaddress.com doesn't list them as proxies (although they aren't always accurate, so they could be wrong). They are both however both based in two different parts of Connecticut using two different service providers and the same vandalism pattern, meaning it could be a usage of undeclared proxy servers or someone shifting wi-fi hotspot. Given that the Indonesian proxy abuser had used IPs from different locations, there is a chance that the Connecticut abuser is doing the same thing. I'd advise everyone to keep an eye out on the WooHoo page for the same type of vandalism. 17:36, October 11, 2011 (UTC)

User:Sforster123
has made no constructive edits here or anywhere else on Wikia. This edit to my talk page on his wiki shows that he intends to troll (in addition to every other message on my talk page there) after I have told him several times that I'm not interested in a position on his wiki. A VSTF user has left Sforster123 a warning on Community Central for the same kind of harassment.

Here on The Sims Wiki, Sforster has only tried to obtain administrator rights through a variety of different ways, has harassed administrators about the same things over and over again, has ignored several warnings and doesn't seem to have learned from his two blocks issued by BobNewbie and Woganhemlock. The user is currently blocked for a week but based on his cross-wiki contributions, I feel that we should give Sforster123 a permanent block but I would like some thoughts from other administrators first. 14:56, October 13, 2011 (UTC)


 * A permanent block I agree with. This user has been nothing but a problem for both admins and users, here and on several other wikis. A simple scan of their talk page proves many users have warned the user of their actions, and most of these messages are repeated at least twice. Their behavior shows no signs of improving, and since they've been in no way helping the wiki (but rather doing the opposite), I believe that a permanent block should be issued. -- Bob  ๑  15:04, October 13, 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with permanent block, he only create a mess here. start with vandalizing rfa page, change block info on his talk page when still blocked, doesn't want to hear any positive suggestion to change his behavior and improve this wiki, forcing someone to join his wiki, and the last one is harassment to administrators cross-wiki.
 * i see what he do to GG on his wiki, that is only for vengeance because he doesnt get administrator right here. his word to GG is very impolite and unacceptable same like his wiki just full with his ego. if VSTF issue you a global block that will be better. Wir.wiryawan 15:41, October 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * Sforster123 has been permanently blocked. I think it's best if we keep an eye on what he does across Wikia for now and alert VSTF when we catch him engaging in further disruption. 16:01, October 13, 2011 (UTC)


 * I've notified a VSTF member about the user and their actions here, so that this incident will be kept in mind if they need to decide what to do with the user if any more problems arise. For now though I believe most of this has been taken care of (at least on this wiki), and if any users receive harassing or provocative messages on another wiki from this user they should immediately report it. -- Bob  ๑  17:17, October 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with everyone. A permanent block is the best solution. -- RoseGui [[File:Thanks rose.png]] ( talk here ) 17:22, October 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed (even though its probably a bit too late for it to matter :p)

User:ARHicks00
has made numerous trivial edits on several Sim pages. As in "trivial", that user made many inputs on Trivia section, mostly referring to name references or onomatology. However, these trivias can be considered speculative, and might make the article inaccurate any longer. What action should be done to the user's contributions? Should we undo all his actions or keep it with improved details instead?  Nikel  Talk  10:49, November 9, 2011 (UTC)
 * I very appreciated what he do for the wiki, he made a good contribution for this wiki. but for me too many trivia that not related with the game is not good, too many "maybe" on articles at wiki can made the whole wiki articles look like it is inaccurate, even that is in the trivia. Wir.wiryawan 11:58, November 9, 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty puzzled on what to do as some of his "theories" may be true but others may be false - we don't know because it's mostly speculative. I'll leave this to another admin. 21:11, November 9, 2011 (UTC)
 * Rose already cleanup some speculation and i will do the rest. as gg said "theories" may be true but others may be false so it is inaccurate, and inaccurate info is no good for the article because on this wiki we always provide accurate information about this game only. Wir.wiryawan 01:30, November 10, 2011 (UTC)

Protecting this page - should it happen?
I've noticed that a few administrators would like this page to be protected so that only admins can edit it. I've also noticed that there have been occasions where non-admins have been invited to voice their opinions here. I know this isn't where we would usually try to gain consensus but as it's an administration issue, I've chosen to bring it up here. I have removed the current sysop-only protection until we gain an outcome.

Based on what I've seen, I think this needs to be discussed amongst administrators so we can decide whether to go ahead or not. I personally don't think we should add admin-only protection to this page due to the points I've mentioned above but I wouldn't be opposed to semi-protection. Do you think we should add any protection to this page? 20:53, November 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * I personally don't agree with admin-only protection because regular users have been called to voice their opinions on here. -- RoseGui [[File:Thanks rose.png]] ( talk here ) 21:02, November 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * it is possible we protect this page and just open the protection when regular user is invited on the discussion? because the last discussion uninvited regular user who enter many speculation on the articles just pop up in with angry and accuse us "only information we want can be added to the wiki" then leaving. :( Wir.wiryawan 03:19, November 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Wir, but still uncertain about this. Also, this discussion page is usually used to discuss about not-nice users... which means we're talking about them. It's just not right if they butt in when we discuss about them. Also, we already have community portal talk page, where it's more proper place discussions open for public. So I think this can be our "private corner". Perhaps other users who actually want to join the discussions may give input from any admin's talk page.  Nikel  Talk  14:06, November 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * i support to protect this page for admin only page. because i think this page is created for admin to talk about administrative things about this wiki. so its better to prevent unnecessary regular user to join the talk like what happen couples day ago. we can always open the protection if we need input from regular user and closed it back if the discussion is finished. Wir.wiryawan 03:06, November 15, 2011 (UTC)
 * i support to protect this page for admin only page. because i think this page is created for admin to talk about administrative things about this wiki. so its better to prevent unnecessary regular user to join the talk like what happen couples day ago. we can always open the protection if we need input from regular user and closed it back if the discussion is finished. Wir.wiryawan 03:06, November 15, 2011 (UTC)

User:ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
I don't mean to be critical but I think that the permanent block on this user was premature given that they have only made one edit with no deleted contributions. I'm fine with the block being shortened to 3 days with the hope that they may go away but at this stage, I think a permanent block was severely jumping the gun. Thoughts? 10:37, November 13, 2011 (UTC)

Agreed.10:49, November 13, 2011 (UTC)


 * Maybe we should talk auror why she give that user permanent block, because there must be a reason why she give it to that user.
 * but in my personal opinion i agree with auror. even that user only have 1 edit, from that edit and the username i know that that user absolutely 100% have bad faith for this wiki and that user only want to ruin this wiki. so no need to give that user second chance with temporary block because i sure that user will do another vandal when the block was over. Wir.wiryawan 10:57, November 13, 2011 (UTC)


 * If the block is shortened, I would say to make it 1 week, for the combination of blanking a page and use of profanity. On the other hand, when a user does something like that as a first edit, I'm inclined to doubt that they came here with good intentions, so I can understand the impulse to go straight to a permanent block. I also think that if the block is shortened, and the user does come back, any similar infraction should result in a permanent block. Dharden (talk) 13:19, November 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll go with Dharden's suggestion. As a result, the block has been shortened to one week and the user in question has been given a final warning. 13:30, November 13, 2011 (UTC)

IMPORTANT: User change
Due to some issue with my old account, I decided not to use that account anymore. I am Wir wiryawan and now I use this account on this wiki.

This day November 29, 2011 when I login on the wiki I found my account is blocked again, I suspect my account is global blocked because I share the same ip with Indonesian vandal. The vandal use the same program with me: ultrasurf to vandalize wiki. I need ultrasurf program to login the wiki because my old account is facebook connected user and because facebook is blocked in my office, I cant login without using that program.

I create a new account, it is not facebook connected user so I will be free from ultrasurf program and I hope that case not happen again to me. feel free to contact me there. Thank you Wiryawan310 02:09, November 29, 2011 (UTC)


 * I have de-admined and blocked Wir's old account. Dharden (talk) 04:03, November 29, 2011 (UTC)

Chrissydattilo and Chrissydattilo5
Aside from having almost idential usernames, and  are showing a pattern of the same type of vandalism. Does anyone else smell socks? Dharden (talk) 02:04, December 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, seems pretty obvious so I doubt a checkuser is required in this case. I'd suggest that Chrissydattilo5 is blocked permanently while Chrissydattilo is given a shorter block and a warning. 14:36, December 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. I'd already blocked Chrissydattilo for 3 days, so I left that unchanged and added a warning about socking. Since this user has made no constructive edits, I also warned that continuing to make nonsense or spurious edits could result in a permanent block. Dharden (talk) 16:44, December 2, 2011 (UTC)

User:I is epic u is not
I'm somewhat questioning this username in question, given that, while not as bad as some usernames we've blocked in the past, it can come across as a mild insult. Overall, edits seem to be in good faith (though the user may benefit from a few pointers to help them out). I'm yet to decide on whether I should or shouldn't block for the username and allow the user to create another account to edit. Any suggestions/opinions would be appreciated. 17:59, December 12, 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think it breaks the letter of the policy on usernames, but it bends the spirit. I also don't think there's any "may" about whether this user could benefit from pointers. I'd say not to block, but maybe suggest that this user might want to use a name that's not so "in your face". Dharden (talk) 21:56, December 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd say its borderline. Either way is fine by me.
 * Given that the user does have good intentions, I'll leave this be for now as it's not something serious enough to warrant a speedy block. 18:00, December 13, 2011 (UTC)


 * Gosh,I'm not insulting anyone,i was just stumped thinking of a username.i used this username because i like the word epic,gosh.I is epic u is not 19:46, December 14, 2011 (UTC)


 * I already talk, offer him to create a new account and give some suggestion since he didn't mean to do that. Because I think moving to the new account is the best solution for moving from this "borderline" situation. :) Wiryawan310 03:49, December 15, 2011 (UTC)

New year
Hi guys, I have an idea for celebrating this new year. what if we have an "exchange gifts"? We all play the game right, just upload and share your best and beloved sim for everyone on this wiki to download. you can put the download link on your userpage. What do you think?

note: btw is my idea break wiki tos? Wiryawan310 15:24, December 14, 2011 (UTC)


 * Awesome idea! But we need to host the files somewhere. And I doubt Dropbox is a solution for that. And I don't have a sims3.com account (I hate official sites!), so... no exchange for me. But you should put that in the community portal. 16:18, December 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * Copied to a thread on the community portal for further discussion. 19:22, December 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * The further discussion is moved there, I hope, at least admin and bureaucrat can join this "special sim wiki event" if it happen. c'mon, new year is near! lets celebrate in "sim wiki style!" :D Wiryawan310 03:53, December 15, 2011 (UTC)

User:22a5st
, I want to ask your oppinion about that user. is that name acceptable? because for me the word a*s on the middle of the username is not acceptable. Wiryawan310 02:04, December 21, 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see this as problematic mostly because a letter/number combination like that could be saying anything. Plus there are words that do use a somewhat offensive term within them (i.e. harass, association). 11:49, December 21, 2011 (UTC)

Spam from users with only 1 contribution
This user,, have been repeatedly spammed in his user page by three different users, one of which is an anon. These are the spammers in the order of timeline,, , and. I smell something fishy here, because all three of them used spam as the crime, only contributed once, and both usernames have "01" in the end. What should we do to them?  Nikel  Talk  11:59, December 26, 2011 (UTC)


 * Both the Colie01 and Disail01 accounts were created minutes before the spam was committed, and have no other edits. I think a checkuser is in order, as I suspect the accounts may be "throwaways" created for the purpose of spam or other vandalism. I also do not think that a block without warning was entirely inappropriate. They did violate our policy wrt editing other users' userpages and spamming, and the edit by Disail01 was outright spam that did not even pretend to be self-promotion. Dharden (talk) 13:56, December 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah they seem very much alike so I'm in support of someone requesting a CU (assuming someone hasn't already). 14:09, December 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * May I know what checkuser is?  Nikel  Talk  10:29, December 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * An administrator or bureaucrat contacts someone with Wikia and asks them to look at whether two or more users share the same IP address or credentials... basically, it helps admins determine if someone is sock-puppeting or if someone created a new account to get around a block on a wiki. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 16:51, December 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * Here it goes. Another user spammed the page again. . I have no doubt they're sockpuppet. But I still don't know what to do with the checkuser. Can we advance to block them without warning or research?  Nikel  Talk  08:12, December 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * I protect the page to semi-protected to prevent another spam while waiting on CU result. its look like only new generated user spam the page. Wiryawan310 09:46, December 28, 2011 (UTC)

This new user, posting many spam link on his talk page. I suspect he was the same user who create many account spamming page and due to I recently protect James021984 page, he create a new one and post spam there. I block this user for 1 week to prevent posting any spam and I recommend to CU on this user too before the block released. Wiryawan310 10:17, December 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * As I can see, he spammed on his own talkpage, and his username doesn't end with "01". Maybe you should shorten the block to 3 days, until you can find some more evidence. In the meantime, I'll get my eyes on him...  Nikel  Talk  10:36, December 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * Forget what I just said. Another new user, made the same pattern with Chitamark3 by spamming his own talk page. This is a serious condition. Sooner or later, if no action is done, he will create more sockpuppets to spam! Should we block them ALL?  Nikel   Talk  10:40, December 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * that user too... lol Wiryawan310 11:01, December 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * I try to block this ip range 124.253.0.0/16 based on the only ip caught spamming with the same pattern. I hope the spam is stopped. if Im wrong, please unblock it.Wiryawan310 11:10, December 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * For me, it's not the spam that matters. It's the sockpuppetry. I don't know how many more he'll be making. But when it's proved they're all sockpuppets, be sure to block them forever, Wir. ;D  Nikel  Talk  11:12, December 28, 2011 (UTC)

I send a CU request via Special:Contact on this user below Wiryawan310 11:38, December 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * User:James021984
 * User:Colie01
 * User:Disail01
 * User:Chitamark3
 * User:Gillet1
 * User:Gurikora4
 * User:Pscli01
 * User:124.253.94.121
 * Wow...I shouldn't have gone away for too long. :P And Wir did the right thing here so hopefully the Wikia staffer conducting the CU will tell Wir the appropriate IP range (hoping that it's 124.243.0.0/16) and a rangeblock can be put in place (if not already). 13:01, December 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * I already block some account for 1 week and I continue to block all account above that hasn't been blocked yet for 1 week while waiting for CU finished. I think this is the best to prevent any spam return from unblocked account. Each account only have 1 edit and that is the spam, so I doubt they dont have any good faith for this wiki. if I'm wrong, please unblock it. Wiryawan310 15:16, December 28, 2011 (UTC)

I just got an email from Sannse

Sannse Carter Cushway, Dec-28 06:10 pm (UTC):

Hi,

None of the accounts use exactly the same IP, but all are on a common range and have similar email addresses. It seems clear enough that they are the same person.

Other accounts I see on this range are:

Fireuv2 Jholamark3 Misck92 Natha0001 Petic21 Poual1 Sarara7

You may be able to slow this person down by blocking 124.253.88.0/21 - this range covers all their current accounts. Hopefully that block should discourage them.

Regards,

-- sannse

Sannse Carter Cushway Wikia Community Support

They all same person, I already permanently blocked All 14 accounts for excessive spamming and sock puppetry. Ip range 124.253.88.0/21 including 124.253.94.121 has been blocked for 3 month to prevent another spamming like what sannse suggest. That is a lot of block in the same time... lol Wiryawan310 18:34, December 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * 14 accounts? Wow, someone must have a lot of time on their hands. :| 19:21, December 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * The spam returned with user:Hussey98 User:Pontymark after I unblock 124.243.0.0/16, I permanently block and add the block 124.243.0.0/16 again. I recommend all admin here to check any new user created and permanently block if any spam returned. total account blocked so far 16... lol Wiryawan310 05:57, December 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * Just so everyone knows, a /16 rangeblock will block more IPs than a /21. MediaWiki doesn't allow us to block any value lower than a 16 (15, 14 and so on) but in most cases, a /16 block proves the most effective. I'm going to dread the day that Wikia starts supporting IPv6 where we can only issue a /64 block. :S 15:44, December 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * I already requested CU again on that 2 permanently blocked user to get the best range block. I hope Sannse reply my email soon before new year. Wiryawan310 16:07, December 29, 2011 (UTC)

User:Jay Guzmán
has been blocked twice for "Inserting false information". The first block was one month ago and no edits were made between then and the most recent block from today and I don't see signs of any change in this user's behaviour. Therefore, I think we may as well consider a permanent block. 17:13, December 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with a permanent block. From the experience we have, it is becoming clear that he will not be here to make constructive edits. -- RoseGui [[File:Thanks rose.png]] ( talk here ) 17:17, December 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not oppose for permanent block but I think giving permanent block now is too soon for user with few edit. I think giving the final warning for that user is fit, 1 more false info after the block released, he gone forever from this wiki. Wiryawan310 17:42, December 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * Seeing as all their 8 edits were false info, I agree. 20:56, December 29, 2011 (UTC)