The Sims Wiki talk:Community Portal

 Community Portal Talk Page This is the general discussion page for The Sims Wiki! Feel free to discuss anything you want regarding the wiki here or at the forums. Any questions regarding the gameplay features or modding for The Sims series should be taken to our Questions forum. Policy proposals should be made here.



If a link to a particular discussion has brought you to the top of this page, instead of to the actual discussion, then that link may be broken. Please check the link and make sure that the section name is correct, and that the section in question hasn't been archived.
 * Broken Links

 Contents

 Noticeboard

Archives 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
 * Fanon wiki merge (archive 5)
 * Articles about unannounced titles
 * Achievements discussion
 * Fanon Namespace discussion

New user adoption
I've been thinking of bringing back New User Adoption, which would allow an experienced editor (can be anyone really) to "adopt" a new user who requests it and they can rely on that user to help them out. BobNewbie originally came up with the concept but it didn't really go too far. I am planning to adjust some of the "guidelines" for this feature as some of them were just drafts from planning (plus a minimum of 700 edits seems too much for someone to be eligible to adopt someone) but we'll come to that a little bit later. For now, I'm wondering what others think of this. 22:42, February 28, 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. It might encourage "newbies" to edit more and feel more helped and less "lost" when the wiki is full of more experienced users. I also feel it would be an opportunity for the community to get to know itself more. -- RoseGui [[File:Thanks rose.png]] ( talk here ) 22:46, February 28, 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree as well. I aren't that sure how we'll go around it though, since tbh most people who sign up make a few edits and leave.
 * We can definitely add something to the welcome message regarding it which might build some kind of interest amongst new users. I'll probably start planning the new "guidelines" within the next few days as a draft and see how that goes. 13:05, February 29, 2012 (UTC)
 * A very good idea for the new user to become a great professional editor. It can be possible if they will sign up for this, since most (or maybe some) might edit a few and just leave without coming back or they may decline because they are experienced editors from other wikis and/or Wikias. Just saying. ThomasWikia Main 09:52, March 5, 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with ThomasWiki. Mr. Hamming 06:46, April 7, 2012 (UTC)

Game 'generation' portals
Hey all. I'd like to bring up a topic that has been discussed by several people over a series of years. The topic revolves around the idea that we group games together based on their 'generation', and that we create Generation portals that link to games and specific things in each generation (similar to how we have a separate page for TS1, TS2 and TS3 tutorials). The specification of a certain generation would depend on the release date and game engine in the game, but would generally be:


 * Generation one (2000-2004)
 * Began with: The Sims in February 2000
 * Notable additions: Main series games, The Sims Online, The Sims console versions (Bustin' out, Urbz)
 * Final release: The Urbz: Sims in the City in November 2004


 * Generation two (2004-2008)
 * Began with: The Sims 2 in September 2004
 * Notable additions: Full-3D viewing, customizable neighborhoods, introduction of 'Stuff Packs'
 * Final release: The Sims 2: Mansion and Garden Stuff in November 2008


 * Generation three (2009-present)
 * Began with: The Sims 3 in June 2009
 * Notable additions: Seamless neighborhoods, release on smartphones, frequent patches and introduction of new features.
 * Final release: Present generation

What does everyone think of this? --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 22:34, March 6, 2012 (UTC)

I personally think "do not need:" Unless someone was completely new to the game, they should be able to identify the game generation that is associated with the each article. Mind you, we've also got the icons up there to notify readers about what generation(s) the article is relevant to. MILK FOR THE UNYUUFEX, FLAT CHEST FOR THE CUTENESS THRONE, SKULLS FOR THE SKULL PROBES (user talk:Mathetesalexandrou) 03:28, March 7, 2012 (UTC)
 * Good idea, and I'm glad we are finally getting some discussion on this after its been in limbo for so long. IIRC RR made some drafts of the portals a while ago, I'm not sure where they might be though.
 * I think it would be a good way for newcomers AND experienced players to get to the information they want as fast as possible. 21:43, March 7, 2012 (UTC)

Restricting the Fanon namespace
Hi everyone. I've been noticing a lot of problems with anons creating and editing fanon pages. Whether it be an anon vandalizing another fanon page, or an anon vandalizing an admin's user page after having their fanon deleted, I think something should be done about this. I know that it is possible to lock namespaces from being edited by anons (such as with the MediaWiki namespace). Do you think it should be done here? —Random Ranaun (Talk to me! ) 17:56, March 8, 2012 (UTC)
 * Rather than locking an entire namespace, I think it would be better if we adjusted our fanon policies a little. A proposal was made some time ago and I'd rather go along with what LiR proposed back in August. That way, it may give less of an opportunity for an anon to vandalise an admin's userpage as a response to their fanon being immediately deleted. As for vandalising other fanon articles...I've only seen it happen on a few occasions in the past and I'd go along with how we'd deal with any other form of vandalism. Then again, I was, and still am, absent so I'm not sure how much of it has happened lately.


 * tl;dr? Go along with this rather than locking the fanon namespace. 18:43, March 8, 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, what he said :p --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 22:11, March 8, 2012 (UTC)
 * If we could actually manage to get discussion going on a policy for once, the one LiR made god knows when would be good. Otherwise this would be the way to go, since anons aren't allowed to make fanon anyway. Imo if they really want to they can just create an account.
 * Isn't it a little soon for a consensus? I think we should discuss this a bit further. —Random Ranaun (Talk to me! ) 00:25, March 11, 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I would have left it open for a bit more. That said, discussion can happen while consensus is being gathered.

Consensus
We are now seeking consensus based on these two options:


 * Option A - Protect the fanon namespace completely from anonymous editors.
 * Option B - Amend the policy based upon this proposal.
 * Other - Other/none of the above (please state in your response what you would prefer).

The discussion will last for one week. . 23:42, March 10, 2012 (UTC)

Option B - This would be a much more generous solution to actually give anonymous users the chance to write their fanon and keep it rather than locking them out of the namespace completely. 23:42, March 10, 2012 (UTC)

Option A - If they want to make fanon so much, they can just make a account. As it is, 95% of fanon now is made by registered users, so it wouldn't change much, and might even get more users registering this way.

Option B - We are having a surge in Fanon creation, and accepting anons (and gradually inducing them into making accounts) will be much welcome. Hopefully they'd participate in voting for featured fanons... Getting more active members are an start. (And LiR's got a point there, as do GG: it's simply unfair to willing anons, and making a Fanon page means that they might have some experience. However, it should be emphasized that anons should be directed towards making an account.) MILK FOR THE UNYUUFEX, FLAT CHEST FOR THE CUTENESS THRONE, SKULLS FOR THE SKULL PROBES  (user talk:Mathetesalexandrou) 02:40, March 11, 2012 (UTC)

Option A - Registering is free, so there is no reason for not register to create fanon. If we protect the fanon namespace, that will be easier for us to manage the fanon and prevent this unnecessary situation: no more deleting fanon by anon, no more angry anon because their fanon deleted on someone talk page (like what happened to mine...), or angry anon because their fanon deleted on someone registered user fanon (like what happen yesterday and andronikos take care of it... lol), and the important one is will be prevent blocking anon that angry because their fanon deleted then vandalizing someone page. Wiryawan310 03:49, March 11, 2012 (UTC)

Option A - Per Wogan and Wir. If they really want to make fanon, all they have to do is register. It'll make our jobs much easier. —Random Ranaun (Talk to me! ) 04:10, March 12, 2012 (UTC)

Option B -I don't think it's fair to delete a person's fanon simply because they didn't register in advance, since they may not be aware of the policy we have in place. I think giving the anons notice once they've created fanon that they need to register is much better than just deleting it entirely. And I think locking the fanon namespace altogether to anons is fraught with problems, one of which being that it might actually violate Wikia's rules. Aside from that, I think it sends a completely wrong message; where we should be open and inviting, we're instead hostile to those who haven't registered, blocking them from trying to make a contribution when we should be allowing that contribution (with the stipulation that they register) and trying to recruit that user. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 04:44, March 12, 2012 (UTC)

Post-Consensus
The vote came out 3-3 for the options listed, so obviously a decision one way or the other wasn't reached. Perhaps, before we go into another consensus-gathering period, we can determine whether or not we want to keep the Fanon Namespace operating as-is. If we can determine that a change is definitely wanted, then we can move forward on actually making that happen.

So, in the spirit of this wiki, I'm calling a vote!


 * Question
 * Should The Sims Wiki make some change to how it currently handles unregistered user contributions in the Fanon Namespace?

A response of Yes indicates support for some change to the status quo, a vote of No indicates support for the current arrangement as-is. Seeing as the last vote lasted a week but all responses were logged within two days, I'm going to shorten the countdown to five days, with the possibility of lengthening if interest exists for its lengthening.

Countdown:. Please leave your response below. -  LostInRiverview talk · blog 02:37, March 18, 2012 (UTC)

Yes - Obviously the increase in traffic on the page and the fact that our administrators are having a hard time dealing with angry anons and accumulating anon contributions means that something should be done, or at least investigated. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 02:38, March 18, 2012 (UTC)

Yes - I stand by what I previously said. It's less likely to make anons angry and it doesn't cut them off from the namespace completely. 11:24, March 18, 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I'm a bit confused since I wasn't following since the beginning of the discussion, but which one is the current policy of the fanon? Is it the one which the Fanon namespace has not been locked yet? If so, then I choose: Yes - Refraining anons from creating fanons will eventually make them have to register. Registered users are easier to be communicated with and backtracked, so we can lend helping hands easier to them. Besides, if they can't make fanons, they might end up in player stories instead.  Nikel  Talk  11:38, March 20, 2012 (UTC)

Yes - Per the above, stops anonymous editors from feeling as locked out as they are now.

Yes - The fanon namespace is getting difficult to deal with. -- RoseGui ( talk here )  12:27, March 24, 2012 (UTC)

Alright, so it's evident that we want some change to how unregistered contributors are handled in the Fanon namespace. Going to open this up for discussion on ideas we could use.


 * Alright, let's begin our post-post-consensus :p. Just kidding. In all seriousness, is there possibly some compromise that could be found between the options in the original vote? I can't think of any myself, but that doesn't mean that there isn't some middle ground there. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 22:40, March 24, 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm going to go ahead and bump this thread because imo we need to get to some sort of conlusion as things aren't that good how they are. As for the matter of compromises, I can't think of many except to lock the whole namespace, adopt that new creation policy (don't know where the link is, should be somewhere in this discussion, sorry) or leave it as is. Anyone else got any ideas that could be worth a mention?
 * Well, I think that we've seen a breakdown in our normal decision-making process. So, it's time to get a new process, at least regarding this decision. It's clear that we don't want the status quo, but how we proceed is not so clear. So, here's what I suggest:
 * We implement the Nominal group technique to decision-making, with some modifications.
 * We allow a time period - about a week, probably - for users to list their ideas for solving the problem. This wouldn't be a time to discuss the solutions, either here or in other areas, but simply a time to put all possible ideas out on the table.
 * We consolidate similar ideas, and then take the main consolidated ideas and discuss the pros and cons of each as a group, as well as answer any questions about each suggested approach.
 * After we're satisfied with the outcome of that, we proceed to ranking the individual solutions by level of preference, with the idea preferred by the most people being implemented.
 * I realize this procedure may seem long and drawn-out, but previous efforts to make a decision have failed, so I don't see much of a choice other than to alter the process by which we make a decision. I'm very much open to other points of view on how we reach this decision, including the process we use. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 05:11, March 30, 2012 (UTC)
 * Sadly, I can't think of anything new other than what's already been suggested. I'm bumping this as I just had to delete a promising piece of fanon made by an anon. If anyone has any ideas, please please please list them down. 20:31, April 4, 2012 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly. So, I've decided to act boldly and to utilize a rule in our policies, specifically Amendment rule #2. Since locking the namespace completely is a greater change from current practice than a change to our policies easing the rules on anon creation, I implemented the rule change that was proposed. The language of it is as follows:
 * Unregistered users who create fanon content (that is of good enough quality to keep on the wiki) shall be contacted by an administrator and asked to register an account and claim their fanon creations. These users shall have at least 72 hours to do this; after that time, an administrator may delete fanon created by anonymous users, regardless of quality. Anonymous users who continue to create fanon content after administrator contact are subject to warnings and blocks, as well as content deletion.

My implementation of that rule change is in line with current policies that give administrators the right to change policies, unless the community objects to the changes. So, if you object to the change I've made, I encourage you to voice that objection below. But I'd say that since we all agree that the status quo was not a good place to be, any change is better than what we had. I'd encourage you to give the new rule a chance before, but in the end the right to object to the rule change is up to you. Please understand that I do not wish to bypass the decision-making of the community; I am simply exercising a rule in order to break a deadlocked decision. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 03:22, April 5, 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm going to come out and say that I support what LiR did. We're at least trying a seemingly more effective solution and if people still don't like it then fair enough. Sometimes, trying something can mean the difference between liking and disliking something. 06:47, April 5, 2012 (UTC)

Katy Perry
I just got some info from external site that this exchange page is official from katy perry herself. She uploaded her self sim and I believe its really her because after I download and look carefully that sim is 100% same like katy perry sim used on trailer. Since EA has launched The Sims 3 Showtime Katy Perry Edition, I think we need to create a page for Katy perry sim. what do you think guys?

Note: She also upload a cat named kitty purry but it already removed. I still have the copy of the cat...

Wiryawan310 15:05, March 9, 2012 (UTC)
 * I say we should hold off on creating a Katy Perry page unless EA offers an official Katy Perry downloadable Sim or unless she appears in the Katy Perry Edition as an NPC (similar to Christina Aguilera or Drew Carey). It would be hard to prove that a particular exchange page was owned by a particular person, unless that person themselves announced it, in which case I'd say we need more definitive proof than an external site just saying so. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 20:23, March 9, 2012 (UTC)


 * EA official site has offering katy perry sim download on that account. We should create a page for it because it officially announced. Wiryawan310 12:54, April 3, 2012 (UTC)

Consensus on 'Consensus'
It occurs to me that we've had a number of, for lack of a better word, 'votes' on issues that are meant to be determined by community consensus. Examples include the vote on closing down Wikia Chat, opening up Requests for Administration/Bureaucrat, and the current (at the time of writing) vote on whether or not to lock the Fanon namespace to anonymous editors.

There are a number of issues with this, at least in my opinion, the first of which is that Wiki Policy states that " [v] oting as a means to determine consensus for a decision should be avoided unless absolutely necessary." In other words, a vote should only occur if it would be impossible or very difficult to determine consensus otherwise, such as through the general discussion that we currently engage in.

Additional problems I see with voting come from when the options available are unclear, change midway through voting, or don't offer a 'status quo' solution. For example, in the vote about whether to lock the Fanon namespace, the two 'stated' options are to either lock it or to implement a grace period for anonymous editors putting content there - there is no option available to keep it the way it is. Preferably, through the discussion process an idea would come forward about what we want; in the example of the Fanon namespace, the discussion might yield support for locking the namespace, in which case the vote should be between whether to lock the namespace or not, not between locking and a third option. Just as easily, the discussion could lean towards a grace period solution, in which case the vote held should be between a grace period option or the status quo.

Finally, there's the issue of what consensus actually is. My belief has always been that consensus is very different than a majority vote. If you have a vote and 10 people participate, with 6 supporting option A and 4 supporting option B, that means that option A, the 'winning' choice received the support of only 60%, while it was opposed by 40%. To me, having 40% of anybody opposed to something doesn't indicate the widespread support needed to implement something. This issue, incidentally, also compounds the 'lack of status quo' problem I mentioned above, as without a status quo to fall back on, if the vote is too close to declare consensus, we really get stuck in a holding pattern that benefits no one.

So, I think that we should make a concerted and unified effort to set some guidelines on what consensus means on The Sims Wiki, and how we're going to handle community-decided issues in the future. To that end, I have written up the following ideas from my personal point of view.


 * 1) Consensus is not a majority vote - it should be clear that there is no significant opposition to something before it is done, or if opposition occurs, that the supporters are open to compromise to make the ultimate decision reflect the wishes of as many people as possible.
 * 2) Votes should only be held when an informal drive to determine consensus has failed and where a definitive decision is necessary. If the community fails to come to a consensus on a solution, but the problem being fixed is not major, there is no reason to force a vote. This would not apply to Requests for bureaucratship, which have specific rules regarding approval.
 * 3) Discussions should be left 'open' long enough for a variety of solutions to come forward, and users should remain open to changing their opinions, preferences and ideas as discussion progresses, eventually culminating in one or two possible compromise solutions that can then be more clearly consented to.

I would love to have some discussion about the nature of consensus, and about my points above specifically. Note that this is not itself a drive for consensus, nor is it a vote. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 00:16, March 17, 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm alright with the way its being done now, but I'd like to get something written in stone with regards to what defines consensus, e.g. the amount of people who support/oppose it. Usually, I think that around 70% approval is the way to go.
 * The way that I see it, we have a discussion on something for a day or so, and then just skip to a vote. I think it goes this way as discussion can be very active, but will dry out very quickly, and nothing will come out of the discussion - e.g. this discussion to eliminate player stories from a couple of months ago. Simply put, if we could make it so discussion doesn't die as quickly as it begins, we'd be able to collect consensus through another means.
 * On another related note, I think it would be a good idea if we had an option to keep things the way they are in consensus/votes by default.
 * I'm not really sure what consensus is, as far as a set in stone number. I think it depends on the individual circumstances to a degree. While certainly unanimous support for something would be consensus, that rarely happens so making it a requirement would be detrimental. At the same time, 50% or 60% or possibly even 70% support might simply not be that magic point where one could confidently say that the community supported a particular measure. So, to boil it down, I don't know :p --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 00:35, March 17, 2012 (UTC)
 * Added Also I think you're correct in that discussion tends to dry up rather quickly. But just as much, I've noticed that votes often start before that discussion really ended, as if the admin starting the vote wanted to capture that 'action' before it dried up. I'd say that as soon as a vote starts, we usually get some attention back in the subject, so maybe what we should do is state that votes can't begin until the discussion has dried up or until a couple weeks have passed? --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 00:38, March 17, 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd rather it would be that a change would happen with the majority of the community agreeing to it via a "vote" or "consensus". The only reason that I personally feel a "vote" is more effective than a "discussion" is because a "discussion" has the tendency to die pretty quickly whereas a timed "vote" doesn't. I don't think adding something like "discussion should last for a couple of weeks" as a requirement would help much, if at all, because the fact that it dies down is probably more related to the nature of someone having no view on the actual proposal - they just want to either vote for or against it. In my view, a discussion is just...that but about the proposal in general, not about choosing whether to implement it or not.


 * Obviously with a majority vote, the positives and negatives of the proposal should be taken into account when voting. Maybe it can be brought up in the discussion for others to see which can help to prevent "significant opposition" to a proposal but other than that, I'd rather go with a majority vote - it just seems more effective most of the time...or in other words, keep everything how it is now and change almost nothing. 19:37, March 17, 2012 (UTC)
 * Frankly, then, we're at an impasse. I do not believe that a majority is sufficient to make a decision (see here). In fact, even using the term 'vote' interchangeably with 'consensus' dirties the idea of what consensus really is - a general agreement on a course of action, as opposed to what it isn't - a majority vote, or indeed any vote at all. Certainly just because the answer to the problem of dying discussions hasn't become apparent doesn't mean that the status quo is the best solution, so I'd encourage everyone (including myself) to be open minded in searching and discussing possible solutions, rather than sticking with the status quo simply because it's the most convenient and appears to be the most suitable of our options. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 20:35, March 17, 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Georgie, a majority vote seems to be more effective at the time being as I don't think there is any other option - discussions get slow, many people seem to share their views with others but many don't as well. So, votes are quicker and more effective, but what I suggest is: whenever a vote occurs and something comes up (a solution), after a significant amount of time since the vote ended, we should begin a discussion concerning the solution that was decided in the vote to see if the community is actually satisfied with it or not. -- RoseGui [[File:Thanks rose.png]] ( talk here ) 21:44, March 17, 2012 (UTC)
 * I like RoseGui's suggestion. Even if something wasn't everyone's cup of tea, it at least allows them to evaluate the change and they can voice their opinions whether they've changed or not. 21:55, March 17, 2012 (UTC)
 * If we are to stick with voting, then I insist and repeat that a majority simply is not good enough when dealing with major changes. When we've done 'consensus drives' in the past (the example I will link to, the Fanon Namespace creation final consensus, visible here) was, in my opinion, an ideal application of what we more-or-less perform now. That is, over a period of time an option, in this example case the creation of the Fanon namespace, was determined then the community was asked to formally show their support or opposition to it. Taking the results of the formal consensus-gathering, I as an administrator at the time determined that consensus for the creation of the Fanon namespace did exist, despite well-articulated objection from some users. The final margin of support/opposition in that decision is somewhat irrelevant, as what mattered - whether the community by-in-large accepted and consented to the idea - was ultimately decided.
 * I would like to quote what I said at the time: "However, measuring consensus is not the same as voting, and consensus cannot be provided by a simple majority vote, but through stronger support from the community. Consensus is not like a vote total; it can't be quantified and analyzed deeply, since everyone will have different opinions and different strength of support or opposition (or neutrality) towards an idea." Two people who at the time opposed the creation of the Fanon Namespace - RoseGui and Eduardog3000 - seemed to agree with what had happened despite being on the "losing" side. The decision on the Fanon namespace is ultimately the meter stick by which I, either consciously or unconsciously, measure all other decisions and processes. That is my personal judgment, not necessarily that of anyone else.
 * Thinking back to that vote, though, I'd like to hypothesize what might have been the case if I or another admin at the time had 'ruled' a consensus drive to have been successful if only a narrow majority supported the outcome. I know I personally was concerned that even the margin that had been given in that consensus was too narrow to justify creation, so had I been presented with the hypothetical 'slim majority' I can certainly say that I would not have agreed that community consent had been given, even despite my own bias in favor of a particular outcome. So, I'm concerned that if the hypothetical slim majority decision were to occur nowadays, that we would see a different outcome that might very wrongly ignore serious concerns and doubts by a minority - but a sizable minority - of the wiki simply because they couldn't get 51% support. That to me is unpalatable and unacceptable, and very much a reason to make a change to the present system, or at the very least a reason to ensure that a simple majority cannot be construed to indicate community consensus. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 23:30, March 17, 2012 (UTC)
 * IMO, the reason why a discussion dries up so quickly is because people have no more interest or anything to say merely because that's not really the subject they have a knack for. People in general might only stop by and think, "That's not really a bad idea, why not? Whatever." The thing is, what's discussed doesn't really impact to their knowledge.
 * What GG said makes sense, but what LiR said wasn't wrong too. Voting is not always needed or major, and it might not be that necessary after all. If we are discussing about a particular subject that general people might not really have any idea about the impact, voting might no longer be possible. Instead, we could ask community opinions about what they think about the idea and what they suggest, and then we consider about it, instead of asking whether they should choose option A or B, and no other solutions could possibly appear. I think it's the community opinion and consideration what matters and is important, not how many votes people have chosen for certain options.  Nikel  Talk  12:42, March 20, 2012 (UTC)
 * I think I understand LiR's point but I am concerned that consensus slows down discussions or something. In my opinion, vote should be used when things, that do not affect the wiki to a large extent, like a logo, newsletter logo, etc., but when the change in discussion could have a huge impact, maybe we should go with a consensus. I would also like re-state that we always have the chance to open a discussion where everybody can give their points about on things that were already discussed but need fixes or that somebody is concerned about, and maybe that's what we should do more regularly. What do you all think? Thank you for reading. -- RoseGui [[File:Thanks rose.png]] ( talk here ) 17:17, March 20, 2012 (UTC)

(Resetting indent) I would say that if something isn't major enough to require consensus, than it probably isn't major enough to require any sort of formal action. Changing a logo, making aesthetic changes, etc is something that used to be done without community consensus or voting, and for the most part that was uncontroversial. Perhaps part of the issue is burnout - we're voting on a lot of things, things which have a limited impact or things which in the past were just decided by the editors themselves. So I think maybe what we do is say that if something isn't important enough to warrant an actual discussion and consensus, that we just go ahead and make the changes that are being suggested. If users have a concern or problem with those changes, then they can bring up their problems and then have a discussion. In short, be bold. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 18:06, March 20, 2012 (UTC)

The Fannies (again)
When the fanon namespace was created, LiR shared an idea (can't remember if it was via IRC or not) about the "Fannies" - an award "ceremony" dedicated to fanon with various nomination categories, such as "Best overall fanon", "Best fan fiction", "Best fanon Sim" etc.

As this wasn't formally mentioned on-wiki, I thought that it would be a nice idea to set it up on a yearly basis (like the Oscars, the Golden Globes etc.) and as the Community Director, I don't see an issue with this and I'd like to know what everyone else thinks of it.

I'd also like to note that this isn't a vote; this is merely asking for opinions on something. 18:14, March 21, 2012 (UTC)
 * I find it a great idea, although I suspect that the big preexisting ones will probably have most share of wins. Fannies IMO if we are to have one should be based on time (that is, those that are completed vs those in progress, for one) MILK FOR THE UNYUUFEX, FLAT CHEST FOR THE CUTENESS THRONE, SKULLS FOR THE SKULL PROBES (user talk:Mathetesalexandrou) 18:52, March 21, 2012 (UTC)
 * After much digging through archives I found a discussion from around this time last year on this same topic. It seems it was generally supported, and since I support it as well, I say we try it out. Granted, we could have the problem we always seem to get of barely anyone voting, to which I have no solution for :/ Other than that imo the one from a year ago has a few too many categories, I'd prefer it to be something like The Sims Wiki Awards in terms of organisation, and maybe running some sort of external poll to protect privacy and all that stuff.
 * Yeah I was thinking we could go that route. Using an external poll system like Surveymonkey is more secure and eliminates the flaws of Wikia's native poll system, which could be scammed by dynamic IPs etc. 18:49, March 22, 2012 (UTC)
 * I can tell I'm prolific when ideas that I didn't even suggest are being attributed to me :p In fact, I couldn't find anything said by me in that discussion. On a serious note though, I like the idea of doing it externally. Who will serve as judge(s) though? --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 20:32, March 22, 2012 (UTC)
 * This reminds me to Bob's fannies templates.  Nikel  Talk  01:18, March 23, 2012 (UTC)
 * @Nikel - IIRC he made them last year, when another discussion on this was taking place. I don't really like the colour scheme myself, maybe something like the standard gold featured templates.
 * @LiR - As for who to serve as judges, I'm thinking we have some sort of nomination period on-wiki, without any voting, and then all the nominees are put in a poll like the TSW awards.
 * I like the idea for the Fannies and I agree with almost everything above this comment, but I think that we could work on another name (because "Fannies" reminds me of another similar word that shouldn't be mentioned in a place like this). 12:11, March 24, 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with the suggestion. It would help the fanon namespace to get more interactive. (: And also, I agree with Wogan on making the templates gold. -- RoseGui [[File:Thanks rose.png]] ( talk here ) 12:21, March 24, 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the term 'fanny' is one that is more inappropriate in UK English-speaking areas and Commonwealth countries (i.e. pretty much everywhere else besides the U.S.); in the United States, the word doesn't have the same meaning as elsewhere. I know personally I suggested the name (or co-suggested it with Bob, but I can't quite remember who came up with it originally) as a tongue-in-cheek reference to award ceremonies such as the Emmys, Grammys, etc. as well as a reference to the more colorful nature of the word in Commonwealth English. I personally, being a US English speaker, have no problem with the word 'fannies', but if our Commonweath or UK English speakers see it as too inappropriate, then I'd support a name change. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 22:47, March 24, 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with LiR, and I think I know what it means... How about "Fanonies"? Boy, am I so bad at naming! :s I also suggest that we change the award template, because IMO, stacking parthenon templates really take up a lot of space.  Nikel  Talk  06:20, March 25, 2012 (UTC)

(resetting ident) Having been born in the UK, I don't find the name "Fannies" as offensive. Okay it may have some reference to a "graphic NSFW term" but to be honest, hardly anyone I know uses that term anyway, hence why I don't find it offensive. I feel the name is okay though if others can think of a more suitable name (tongue-in-cheek allowed) then feel free to suggest it.

As for the judges, I say we could just have it where users can nominate themselves and then we vote on who the judges are and then we'll go from there. Finally, I'm not too sure about changing the award template or not (as Parthenon seems to be the easiest and most adopted way of doing it) seeing as different users have different preferences. Personally, I'm okay with Parthenon as it's convenient plus I have a section of my user page dedicated to awards templates anyway, leaving everything uncluttered (then again, my user page is pretty code hungry, meaning I need templates :P). If anyone else has a suggestion regarding the awards template, feel free to note it down. 10:46, March 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * I think this is an awesome idea! "Fannies" may be a vulgar name to British users. I was thinking possibly calling it the "Emerald PlumBobs" or something sim-related, just like the Golden Globes or something... just a suggestion... AsherEire 17:31, March 26, 2012 (UTC)
 * Emerald PlumbBobs sounds decent enough, assuming this is going to be renamed. 19:37, March 29, 2012 (UTC)


 * It's just a suggestion in case some immature people take "fannies" the wrong way. Other than that- I think this idea could and should go ahead! AsherEire 20:12, March 29, 2012 (UTC)
 * One thing - how about the Platinum Plumbbobs instead?... sorta like the Golden Globes, only platinum because platinum is cooler (there's also the platinum aspiration in TS2). But Emerald Plumbbob is cool too. -  LostInRiverview talk · blog 05:24, March 30, 2012 (UTC)
 * I prefer Platinum PlumbBobs myself. As for Fannies, I didn't notice the double meaning until a few posts ago, hehe, and its fine with me as well.
 * I like Platinum PlumbBobs as well and I don't have any problem with "Fannies" name. However, if someone else is uncomfortable with it, we can change it. -- RoseGui [[File:Thanks rose.png]] ( talk here ) 10:31, March 30, 2012 (UTC)


 * Platinum PlumBobs sounds better... perhaps "Fannies" should just be a nickname? AsherEire 17:46, March 30, 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess that if someone wants to call it "Fannies", they can as long they don't intend to expose its double meaning either. -- RoseGui [[File:Thanks rose.png]] ( talk here ) 18:15, March 31, 2012 (UTC)


 * How about "Simmies Award"? Or simply "Simmies"? And if we intend to award the winner with recognition in their userpage, can I suggest that we make them special userboxes only for them, instead of casual parthenon? I imagine the userbox will be unique with cool colors and glowing, e.g. platinum, gold, emerald, etc. Also, perhaps I can provide some icons for this Fannies from Late Night or Showtime like these...  Nikel  Talk  14:08, April 2, 2012 (UTC)
 * Icons are pretty cool. :) 16:26, April 2, 2012 (UTC)
 * Personally, I'd go with "Fanon Awards." "Fannies" just sounds stupid imo. —Random Ranaun (Talk to me! ) 21:41, April 2, 2012 (UTC)
 * So, when will we see actual nominations and voting things? Getting anxious here. MILK FOR THE UNYUUFEX, FLAT CHEST FOR THE CUTENESS THRONE, SKULLS FOR THE SKULL PROBES (user talk:Mathetesalexandrou) 23:24, April 2, 2012 (UTC)
 * I say we should call them the Platinum Plumbbobs, with 'Fannies' being the more casual name for them. I think something like 'Fanon Awards' is just too boring-sounding. And the icons are good, too. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 23:43, April 2, 2012 (UTC)
 * The idea sounds great, but the name could be better, possibly "Platinum Plumbbobs". ! SCHNETZKA  ! ( talk ) 23:46, April 2, 2012 (UTC)

That's the icon of Simfest, I guess, from Showtime. Since Plumbbob and the logo are green, maybe "Emerald PlumbBobs" is better?  Nikel  Talk  13:04, April 3, 2012 (UTC)
 * Seeing as it's the most effective name, I'll go with Emerald/Platinum Plumbbobs. 13:56, April 3, 2012 (UTC)


 * Fanon pages in the "chapters" section can't be nominated in the featured fan fiction/fanon pages, can they (please correct me if I'm wrong!)? If this is true, perhaps certain chapters can be nominated or the series. Also with the naming, perhaps officially it could be Platinum PlumBobs. The Platinum PlumBob could be like the overall winner of a category, whilst the Emerald PlumBob could be for the runner-up? Asher Eire talk 17:42, April 3, 2012 (UTC)
 * I know it may be a bit late, but I just came up with a name for the awards - the "Plumbies", which would suit the SimFest icon very well. 19:15, April 3, 2012 (UTC)


 * The Plumbies seems like a good name! Perhaps Emerald/Platinum could be just the awards? Asher <font color="#FFA700">Eire talk 19:42, April 3, 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah I'm late as well, but I just thought of another name - the Golden Bella's. We could use that statue of Bella Goth in Belladonna Cove on the award template - I'd be willing to photoshop it and color it/whatever. But, yeah, I like the sound of Platinum/Emerald (maybe make each award a different colour) PlumbBobs the most out of the ideas other people have said.


 * Sorry I'm tardy to the party but can I have a saying in this? Maybe we should keep the name "Plumbies" or "Simmies" and use that Simfest logo for the winners of the different sections of fanon. For a "Best in category" we should use that acting career logo Nikel posted up but recolored in green and silver as well for Platinum and Emerald awards. Starmoonie 23:11, April 28, 2012 (UTC)

Alright, this discussion, as per usual, came to a screeching halt. So, to force the issue, I've created The Plumbbobs! Hopefully now that we have the actual page created, we can get this idea off the ground. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 07:51, May 7, 2012 (UTC)

News blogs
I've noticed that news blogs (i.e. for The Sims series and community news) are generally delivered by administrators. However I have noticed from time to time that non-admins have also been making these blogs but without the Sims News category. [http://sims.wikia.com/wiki/User_blog:Vss2eip/EA_officialy_confirms_Master_Suite_Stuff! This blog] and [http://sims.wikia.com/wiki/User_blog:Jones143/Fall_Fruition! this] are just two examples. I know there is no explicit policy stating that only admins can make these blogs but the problem is, if anyone were allowed to make these blogs then issues such as plagarism could occur (which I deleted from a non-admin the other day). This has made me wonder about how news blogs should be handled and who should deliver them. I know some wikis have a "News team" or something similar regarding these blogs. Should there be a something clarified regarding administrators creating these blogs on this wiki or not? 21:39, April 2, 2012 (UTC)
 * We have the Newsletter team, which is made up of three sysops (including me), a bureaucrat and only one non-admin. I think that we could get another sysop or 'crat and we could take care of the news. 21:47, April 2, 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it's not a bad idea to scrap the news blogs completely (unless it's something community related that's urgent/important) and just have it merged into the newsletter. I'll happily help out on the newsletter team with that. 21:50, April 2, 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm... very complicated. Certainly users should be allowed to blog about things relevant to the game, and they should be allowed to provide some information on a release, if that is accompanied by a review or opinion of it. But the blogs that we place under the Sims News category are just that - news, not opinion. So one thing I'd say is that we make it a rule where only sysops can use the Sims News category. As for those other blogs, maybe we simply need to make it clearer that they should be opinion-based, not fact-based. The facts, after all, are most relevant in the content articles themselves. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 21:52, April 2, 2012 (UTC)
 * Disregard my paragraph, I just read GG's second posting, and I'd agree with just scrapping Sims News blogs. Most of what we report on is old news by the time we get to it anyways. I still think we should do community news regularly, not just in the newsletter. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 21:53, April 2, 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah I think the blogs could still be used for community stuff as it's the easiest way to go in depth about something quickly. Whatever community news that is featured in the newsletter is usually in brief anyway. 22:35, April 2, 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm fine for just keeping the Sims News blogs - the newsletter only comes up once a month and they aren't that hard to make up - I'm intending to make one for the Katy Perry stuff pack announcement soon (assuming it hasn't been done). And as for who makes them, I'm of the mindset it looks more professional if we get the admins to handle the news blogs. One of the main reasons I think we should keep the news blogs is that they often get a fair few comments and help with keeping the community engaged and a part of the site, as well as discussing the subject matter.
 * That is a good observation. Personally I don't care if they stay or go but if they do say then I suggest we use the rule LiR suggested regarding Sims News by admins being facts and everything else being opinions in his "disregarded" paragraph. 17:13, April 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep 'em or get rid of 'em, it doesn't matter to me. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 18:26, April 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Wogan. It would look more professional if admins were the ones to do the Sims news. However, that doesn't mean regular users can't make them, they can, but "official" Sims news would be handled by admins preferably. If something needs to be announced and the newsletter is far away from being submitted, I don't see why we shouldn't publish at least a "notify" blog. Maybe we should just make notify blogs for announcements - expansion packs, stuff packs, store content, and then let having those matters be further detailed on the newsletter. What do you think? Thank you. -- RoseGui [[File:Thanks rose.png]] ( talk here ) 11:55, April 5, 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm bumping as this has gone unattended for 20 days (whoa). I'm now thinking we should just go along with the "notify" blogs that RoseGui suggested - they'll just be placed under the Sims News category. Plus they can be used for community interaction too. We'll just have to emphasise that "news blogs" made by non-admins should mostly be opinions and they can still be used for community interaction - I recall a recent blog regarding Katy Perry's Sweet Treats had next to no facts whatsoever and was a good short but sweet opinions blog which the community got involved with. 13:23, April 25, 2012 (UTC)

Activating Wiki Achievements
So, I'm going to suggest this... I think we should look into re-activating Wiki Achievements.

''For anyone who doesn't remember, let's go through a little refresher. Back in October of 2010, a blog was created to promote The Sims 3: Late Night - this promo blog was accompanied by the activation of the Achievements feature, which had not been active here prior to that blog. In the back-and-forth between admins here and Wikia, it was determined that its activation was a mistake, but that it should remain active through the duration of the promotional blog. In the meantime, the community engaged in a detailed discussion and vote about whether the feature should stay active after the promotion ended. At the time it was decided to treat the period between the feature activation and the end of the promo period as a sort of 'trial run' for the feature to determine whether it should be kept.''

''At the time, two main points were argued in favor of shutting off the feature. First was the fear of 'Badge Boosting', where users would make many useless or near-useless edits simply to earn badges and increase the number of points they received, in order to place higher on the Leaderboard. This also applied to users leaving comments on the Late Night promotional blog, in order to receive the 'platinum achievement badge' that was awarded for commenting - many comments, it was believed, were given for the sole purpose of receiving the badge. The second point to shutting off Achievements was the proposal for a new wiki feature - Featured Editor. Ultimately, the community decided to shut off achievements.''

Now, 1 1/2 years later, the feature remains off. But I'm curious about how many of us stand by that decision. Certainly at the time I agreed with how I voted (and how the vote ultimately turned out), but I wonder a few things now. First, perhaps the community reaction against Achievements are due to its uncontrolled activation - we were not warned that it was going to happen, so we were caught unaware when we had to start dealing with the problems it (though more especially, the blog) caused. I wonder if a lot of the reaction against Achievements was due specifically to the huge mess surrounding the promo blog and Platinum Badges? Looking back now at what was decided, I can't help but wonder why I was so concerned about badge boosting. After all, as long as an edit is in good faith, who cares why the edit was made, right?

So, I'm curious where everyone else stands as far as this feature. I for one have really reconsidered my original stance, but I want to know where everyone else stands now. I'll jump right in before this starts and say that if the community were to decide to re-activate Achievements, we could do so in an organized fashion so that we could customize the feature to our own wiki, and so that we wouldn't be surprised by it coming online.

So, thoughts? --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 18:48, April 13, 2012 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think it should stay deactivated for the same reasons we turned it off in 2010. A major flaw with the system is that it's comparable to say, a popularity contest. People would want to be at the top by having the most achievement points. Problem is a user could just go and make a collection of fluff edits or edit at such a fast rate to get points/badges/whatever that they mess something up and don't realise it, making it a potential headache to cleanup.


 * If however it is ultimately decided that Achievements will be reactivated, I'd suggest customisation (like LiR suggested) of the feature as well as some kind of way to reduce "fluff editing" and "badge boosting". The lack of a sponsored promo blog will undoubtably make matters better but sadly, I still remain unconvinced. 19:05, April 13, 2012 (UTC)


 * I wasn't on the Wiki when this was deactivated, but on other Wikis, it's like PlayStation Trophies or XBOX achievements- one huge contest have the most badges. Although other Wikis have the badges system, The Sims Wiki has a fanon portal, which, in my opinion, is a excellent make-up for it. :) <font face="Futura"><font color="#74C365">Asher <font color="#FFA700">Eire talk 19:08, April 13, 2012 (UTC)
 * The fanon portal and Achievements aren't the same thing nor are they comparable. The fanon portal is basically a "homepage" for our fanon namespace. I'm guessing you meant Featured Editor, Featured Author? 19:12, April 13, 2012 (UTC)
 * I personally think it should stay deactivated. These achievement things are highly overrated, and as AsherEire has said, turns the wiki into a contest for the most badge, not that I would be interested. As GG has mentioned, there will be badge boosting, which I think is full of crap, for a lack of a better word. MILK FOR THE UNYUUFEX, FLAT CHEST FOR THE CUTENESS THRONE, SKULLS FOR THE SKULL PROBES  (user talk:Mathetesalexandrou) 19:21, April 13, 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm tired at the moment, so to keep it short and sweet- the Wiki doesn't need some kind of leaderboard so let's keep the achievements deactivated. <font face="Futura"><font color="#74C365">Asher <font color="#FFA700">Eire talk 19:29, April 13, 2012 (UTC)
 * While I do get the thinking of re-enabling it, I've got a lot of issues with it, namely:
 * The system doesn't distinguish between unproductive edits and actual productive edits. I could, for example, go to a page, add a file to it 25 times to get a badge, and then revert it, having kept the badge. In one instance on another wiki which was being attacked by multiple vandals I got nearly 1000 points for simply reverting ~50 edits to pages with lots of files on them.
 * It doesn't go on every namespace - only mainspace contribs are given badges. Users who contribute mostly to the fanon namespace, or upload images, or tediously license and categorise said images are left in the dark.
 * We've already got a form of recognition, mostly in the form of Featured User/Fanon/etc.
 * Promotes quantity of edits over quality (I myself believe that one really good edit is worth 10 minor ones)
 * And finally it makes the wiki look like a game to some extent. I know Wikia is going for the "let's copy facebook" route with chat and message wall, and to me the achievements are a bit like facebook games... if you think about it.
 * I don't like the Achievements and I even have it disabled on my test wiki. I just think competitivity between users may create chaos and as an Ombudsman it may require me to settle fights that could easily be avoided. 21:20, April 20, 2012 (UTC)
 * I think Achievements shouldn't be enabled for this wiki, because it was proved, in the past, that it didn't work. -- RoseGui [[File:Thanks rose.png]] ( talk here ) 22:52, April 20, 2012 (UTC)
 * N. O. Dharden (talk) 01:52, April 21, 2012 (UTC)
 * The reason I suggested this at all is because I'm trying to think outside the box as far as encouraging new users to begin editing, and to continue editing once they've started. We're seeing the same set of users recycle through, and not seeing a real influx of new editors, and I don't really understand why, except that we're not 'grabbing' those new users that are coming in. If that's the case, then I'm left to wonder why, and my first instinct is to think that it's due to lack of recognition for accomplishments. Achievements are a way - not a perfect way, of course - to show recognition for contributions. I very much feel the idea that badge boosting will be rampant is severely over-stated... those users that choose to contribute only to gain a rank are still making contributions, and in my opinion would still be more likely to stick around, as opposed to now where a user can come and go without any 'credit' (if they can even stick around long enough before being scared away or perma-banned due to newbie-biting, which I'll make note of in a different location shortly).
 * The point I'm trying to make with all of this is that we need to do something to address this, and Achievements is one possible solution. I'm disappointed that this idea isn't even being considered seriously, not necessarily because I may favor it, but because it's really disappointing that everyone is so eager to dismiss anything that isn't an absolutely perfect solution. There are no perfect solutions, and since I haven't seen many other constructive ideas, I'd say this is our best bet. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 02:40, April 21, 2012 (UTC)
 * I see where you're coming from, but I don't think many people would be keen on this, mainly due to the whole Late Night blog debacle from a year or so ago. We could maybe re-activate chat (I know everyone will be against this, but it's not really doing any harm if it's there unused, and I've seen users say they have wanted to use it), or just promote IRC more. Anyone else have any ideas?
 * Yeah, I can understand that. I pretty much knew this idea probably wouldn't get much traction, but it never hurts to try to think of solutions to problems. On that note, I'm going to branch off the whole 'gather ideas' thread into a new section, because I've pretty much decided that this discussion is likely to be over; I don't anticipate a sudden flood of support and holding a vote would be pointless. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 03:49, April 22, 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I can understand that. I pretty much knew this idea probably wouldn't get much traction, but it never hurts to try to think of solutions to problems. On that note, I'm going to branch off the whole 'gather ideas' thread into a new section, because I've pretty much decided that this discussion is likely to be over; I don't anticipate a sudden flood of support and holding a vote would be pointless. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 03:49, April 22, 2012 (UTC)

Ideas for Attracting/keeping users
In the thread above this one (suggesting implementing Wiki Achievements), I bring up the issue of encouraging new users to begin editing and to keep those users here. In the interests of spurring this discussion, I've split it off the Achievements discussion (since I expect that that discussion will soon end), and will copy over WH's idea from the thread above:
 * "We could maybe re-activate chat (I know everyone will be against this, but it's not really doing any harm if it's there unused, and I've seen users say they have wanted to use it), or just promote IRC more. Anyone else have any ideas?"

I am also interested in any ideas anyone might have to promote new user activity, and/or ways to keep new users interested and keep them editing. To address a problem (that I've observed) regarding new users being scared away, I've created The Sims Wiki:Please don't bite the Newbies - go ahead and give it a read! Aside from that, finding some effective way to recognize achievements and positive contributions could go a long way towards attracting new users. So, any ideas would be great. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 03:49, April 22, 2012 (UTC)
 * Firstly, there's no point in reactivating Chat because the chances are it'll more than likely be just as redundant as it was before - I'd much rather further promote IRC; the vast majority of the community have shown an overwhelming support towards IRC in contrast to that of Chat.


 * On a similar subject of redundancies, I've noticed the Top 10 feature has hardly been used, though we can easily promote that more as a community. I've found this example of how it can actually be used and as the Community Director, I feel that it would be a good idea to make more lists as such and promote them (as well as the feature) as a community, it allows more interaction between users and such. 11:21, April 22, 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, all the new users we get here are people who love The Sims series and the people who leave the wiki are sick of it. Firstly, I believe we should try to improve ourselves in any way. For example, The Sims Medieval; we need to get some articles about it. Apart from that, I believe there aren't many things we can do. EA is responsible for The Sims series, not us, and Wikia is responsible for releasing new features that may attract users as long as they are (and can be) used correctly. There are not many things we can do, in fact. We just need some brand new ideas. How about starting a survey? This way we can know what users think of our wiki and see what they want to be added easily. Andronikos sig.png 11:39, April 24, 2012 (UTC)
 * I like the survey idea. We could link to it on the mainpage and ask for feedback. That would be really interesting to see. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 20:31, April 24, 2012 (UTC)
 * +1 for the idea of a survey. I'll make one up as a draft somewhere (in my userspace or on my test wiki) and see if I can maybe get a site-notice or something for it.
 * Lately I can't help but think that this place is boring and that could be the explanation of the activity drops. I think the survey may as well get given the go ahead and see what everyone else thinks as lately, this place has just seemed...dull. 07:50, May 1, 2012 (UTC)
 * GG has made a simple yet very fundamental point. However, I do not believe we are responsible for that. It is no secret that The Sims series begins to fall due to the greedy company we all know. Unless EA changes its attitude towards the game, there is little we can do. We are boring because the game has become rather dull. If things do not change soon, we may end up in a few years like a wiki of a game I love. Only a handful of editors trying to handle some pages. I don't mean to sound pessimistic, but really, if this doesn't go better, we are doomed. Andronikos sig.png 22:00, May 4, 2012 (UTC)

User right nominations
I have noticed that a common belief (which is not written down anywhere on-wiki) that one user shouldn't nominate another for Requests for Administratorship yet bizarrely, one can nominate another on Requests for Bureaucratship and The Sims Wiki:Requests for rollback.

I've found an example of an older RfA where one nominated another but the nomination was declined because the nominee didn't nominate himself. The flaw which LiR pointed out was that nominating another user "could pressure the user into applying when they might otherwise not want to". While it is understandable, I don't understand how that only applies for an RfA but not an RfR or an RfB as the same flaw(s) can apply; I've known users who have had to give some thought as into whether or not they want to accept an RfB nomination or not.

My question is: Should one user be allowed to nominate another on an RfA? Personally if one can nominate another for one user group, I can't see why it shouldn't be allowed for another (or in this case, every) user group. I would like to know what the community thinks about this just so we can clear things up. 13:13, April 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * Some users might be a bit surprised when they're notified that they've been nominated, when they're not ready. The better approach is to encourage the user to nominate oneself, not to nominate one as an admin. Since rollback holds fewer privileges than administrator, if not limited; I assume it's safe to nominate users as long as they please. Admins are a bit different since they have more responsibilities. However, I don't understand why bureaucrats can be nominated by others. The case might be similar to RfA.  Nikel  Talk  14:22, April 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * I suppose rollback is reasonable since it's just a button that makes reverting easier - anyone who is clearly trustworthy enough and has proved it by not messing around would more likely get it than not. I've never seen that issue occur with RfBs though usually when I nominate someone for an RfB, I'd leave them a talk page message about it so that they're aware of their nomination and then they can accept/decline and we go from there. To make things easier, I'd suggest that the same practice would be used when nominating another user in an RfA. 17:39, April 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * How does this sound: A user may nominate another user for adminship, but the nomination will not be considered until the nominee accepts it. When nominating a user for adminship, please leave that user a talk page message so they know they have been nominated. Dharden (talk) 18:27, April 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm in full support of that idea. 18:33, April 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * Typically, what Dharden describes is how it already works for RfBs... the request isn't really considered until the nominee accepts it. That said, that doesn't eliminate the possibility that the nomination could have convinced a skeptical or unsure possible admin to go forward with the nomination process when they would otherwise not have.
 * From a historical context, there's a reason why RfBs are done by nomination. I think that it's meant to deter users who are over-ambitious from applying for Bureaucrat before they have community support; having a person nominate potential 'crats means at least someone else has faith in that admin to do the job well, rather than the nominated admin deeming that they can do it.
 * On the whole, though, I think I'd agree with Nikel - Getting sysop is much different than getting rollback, so the application process should be different too. Additionally, as a general rule sysop applications were typically not treated as community consensus issues; they used to be resolved by a bureaucrat without community input (though I suppose that input would be welcomed, especially if it would show an issue in the applicant). The application in that sense is similar to applying for a job, and job applications usually aren't debated and voted on by co-workers and colleagues. However, if the community decided collectively that they viewed admins in a different light than in the past, then that would justify not only introducing nomination of admins, but a full vetting process for those applicants.
 * But, to sum it all up, until the community would do that, I support keeping RfAs as-is, with no nominating of other users. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 18:42, April 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * I do remember some time ago a discussion was made about making RfA more "formalised". I'm not sure how anyone feels about that now but the idea was to go for a full voting system for RfA, similar to that of RfB. I think that the same reasons we nominate others on RfB could potentially work for RfA - there's just as much chance of over-ambition and if someone nominates another user, it shows they have faith in the nominee which (while not always the case) can give the nominee more courage to go through the RfA. If anyone wants to go with the full vetting process then that can be considered but on the whole, I just think the RfA system could be a little bit fairer. 19:11, April 25, 2012 (UTC)


 * I have an opinion that supports and objects the subject: When I was a rollback, I was afraid of applying for adminship, and I recall asking other users if I would be a good admin if I applied and if someone had nominated me, it would have helped me in making up my mind.
 * On the other hand, if a user nominates another, the nominee may feel obliged to accept the nominaton and they may not be ready for the job (even if other users show their support), so this may be a double-edged sword. 19:44, April 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * IMO the whole concept of adminship is pretty overblown - it's really just a couple of buttons to help with vandalism and maintenance, and many of the features (e.g. MediaWiki modification) aren't even used by many admins. If you feel someone is competent as an editor, has enough experience, and is trustworthy, why not nominate them? They'd be free to decline if they wish.
 * Exactly. It's kind of the same for bureaucrat rights too (when compared to sysop). If RfB allows users to nominate each other (or themselves) then why can't RfA? As far as I'm concerned, the same pros and cons of the RfB system would also apply to RfA. 20:16, April 27, 2012 (UTC)

Consensus
We are now seeking official consensus based on the question: Should one user be allowed to nominate another on an RfA?

The discussion will last for one week. . 21:49, April 27, 2012 (UTC)

Support - I honestly can't see why not. In whatever way being able to nominate others applies for an RfB should also apply for an RfA, since they're very similar. 21:49, April 27, 2012 (UTC)

Support - I agree with GG and I'd like to add that if a user nominates an unqualified rollback, the community has input in the decision. 21:54, April 27, 2012 (UTC)

Support - Per what I said above.

Support, per WH and as long as the nominated can refuse the nomination. 09:51, April 29, 2012 (UTC)

Conclusion
Seeing as the consensus showed unanimous support (surprisingly), one can now nominate another on an RfA. 21:39, May 4, 2012 (UTC)

Voting on RfAs???
To continue the thread of discussion on Requests pages, I noticed that rules have been added to the Request for Admin. page on voting... but I cannot find any discussion anywhere about this rule. Was this something that a bureaucrat just decided on a whim to add? Otherwise, could it have been a misunderstanding of the subject above (nominations in RfAs)... because from what I understand, the discussion above only involved whether nominations would be allowed, not whether votes would occur for RfAs.

If the rule addition for RfAs never received a community discussion, then I believe the rule is invalid and should be suspended until discussed on-wiki. This isn't a matter of a simple minor change to the rules; adding a voting procedure to RfAs creates something that was not there before - that's a major change to the process and should have community consensus. -  LostInRiverview talk · blog 15:13, May 6, 2012 (UTC)
 * You're right. It will eventually end the same way, but still, the rule is really peculiar. I skipped a day in this is what I missed...? The additional rule makes the RfA become very non-formal. It's like admins here want to shorten the time of voting to save the time (because sometimes the result is already obvious), but this sounds like very unprofessional. Furthermore, I don't see the "reason" why they support the nominee. The reasons are... not so strong.  Nikel  Talk  15:53, May 6, 2012 (UTC)
 * The implementation of the new voting system was mostly discussed on IRC and received input from bureaucrats, admins and ordinary users. Also, there was a thread some time ago which brought up the same thing that was implemented and literally just died. It did however gain support from everyone who participated in that discussion with the exception of LiR.


 * Most users agreed that the RfA system before we implemented the voting and such was unfair. Some users complained that there was an inconsistency regarding how long an RfA would last amongst other factors because there were no concrete guidelines on paper. If we can vote on an RfB and not an RfA then what exactly is the point of voting at all? Both user groups do require the community to trust a user with the tools provided and it's much fairer if we let the community have their say on a request (including bureaucrats) before a decision is made.


 * IRC consensus is still community consensus and before today, other users have seen the changes made to RfA and have said nothing about it, assuming they're either fine with the changes or not fussed either way. If you don't like the changes then fair enough but for the record, this is the first time someone has opposed a change like this yet this isn't the first time a "major" change has been implemented without on-wiki community consensus... 17:09, May 6, 2012 (UTC)
 * It just seemed strange because I didn't know. I agree that the consensus on IRC is a community consensus, though it's not always visible all the time. I don't think I have much to say here..  Nikel  Talk  17:24, May 6, 2012 (UTC)
 * Admittedly it /may/ have been worth putting a proposal on wiki for others to see. I'm not sure anyone even thought of it tbh, maybe because of the numerous failed discussions regarding this that have happened before. Still, sorry to those who were confused. 18:05, May 6, 2012 (UTC)
 * IRC decisions are not community decisions. Community decisions must occur on-wiki. Not everyone uses IRC, the decisions reached there are not public to everyone (for instance, people not using IRC or not on IRC at the time), and the decision-making periods don't last long enough for there to be input from people who are absent. On-wiki discussions are recorded, open to everyone who edits on-wiki even if they don't use IRC, and are open long enough to allow any active or semi-active user the ability to give input.


 * While some non-policy decisions were made on the IRC (the mainpage redesign comes to mind, but I'm sure there are other examples), these are fundamentally different from policy or matters of wiki operation. For one, making changes such as a redesign of a template or the creation of a new logo, or the design of a page isn't a community decision per se, it is simply a matter of one or more users acting boldly. If the community disagreed with the decision those users made, they could then start a community discussion and then it would become a community decision. However, changes to the rules of how the wiki works, either through our Policies or through operation of 'official' tools on-wiki (like Requests pages) have never in the past been made off-wiki, and should not be. Any change to policy or the operations of the wiki must be made on-wiki; that's a basic principle of how wikis work and it is totally unacceptable for decisions on wiki governance to occur outside the wiki itself. It's not open, it's not transparent, and it's too swift for the less-active users to be involved. In short, it's not fair.


 * Finally, this isn't simply a matter of whether or not admins are voted on. If the community decides they want a vote for their administrators, then so be it. This is a matter of decisions taking place outside the wiki; those decisions by their very nature exclude wiki users and absolutely must stop. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 18:33, May 6, 2012 (UTC)
 * No offence but you seem to be taking this a bit too personally and seriously. It was just a misunderstanding by a small group of people who were acting in good faith and I think we all need to assume good faith on everyone's behalf here. Nobody is pefect.


 * To anyone who wishes to oppose the changes, you're welcome to - the community has the right to say no. We just thought RfA would be better off this way - that's it. 19:30, May 6, 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't take this personally, but I do definitely take this very seriously. It's not about the decision that was made or why it was made - it's the manner in which the decision was made. Even a good decision, if made in a way that is exclusionary, is a bad decision. My passion could be misconstrued as 'taking it personally', but I assure you that I am passionate about this simply because I know when something is definitely right and when something is definitely wrong, and having wiki decisions taking place off-wiki most certainly is the latter. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 03:20, May 7, 2012 (UTC)
 * Then I'm sorry if I have misjudged you - it was purely based on how it came out. I've created a discussion section below just so we can get to the bottom of this whole RfA thing amicably. 10:35, May 7, 2012 (UTC)

Let's try this again...
I've added code to hide the new rules until we gain a recorded consensus on this. Basically, should we revamp RfA to incorporate a voting system similar to RfB? I think we should just because it's easier, fairer (as a timer would be included) and it officially allows the community to have a say in all of this. If we're already letting members of the community vote on whether someone should be an admin or not then frankly we may as well make that official otherwise it's just pointless even doing it in the first place. Discuss. 10:35, May 7, 2012 (UTC)
 * First off, I want to assure you all that this is not a pointless endeavor. Having an open discussion on these things is important to allow everyone to give input.
 * Now, onto the matter at hand. As history shows, I'm skeptical as to voting for administrators, as it comes across to me as being more of a popularity contest than a process for vetting skilled users. The reason I preferred the previous system is because in that system, it was left to the bureaucrats - the most skilled users on the wiki - to determine whether a user was ready to become an administrator. But, I see the point that has been made; that bureaucrats are community-elected and so would be affected by that same 'popularity contest' when their vote came around, and that it doesn't make much sense to have a double standard in between the positions. So, my ultimate conclusion on this matter is one of reluctant support. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 16:03, May 7, 2012 (UTC)