The administrators' noticeboard is where The Sims Wiki editors and readers can request assistance or input from members of the administrative team. Matters brought up here may be discussed by administrators and editors, or may be referred as needed to the community discussions forum, the admin portal talk page, or another appropriate venue.
If you are a new editor looking for editing help, are looking for a place to ask game questions, or need some other form of assistance that does not require an administrator, please use the help desk.
Click here to leave a new message on this noticeboard. Please sign your posts by adding four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Note that new sections are added to the bottom of the page.
- 1 Fanon Deletation for Rebooting the game
- 2 The Sims 2: University - newly uploaded images licensing
- 3 User page
- 4 Page Deletion
- 5 Open rights request discussion
- 6 Request to delete fanon
- 7 Brandon / Hardin / Cragen multiple accounts
- 8 Fanon Deletion!
- 9 Image deletion
- 10 Fanon and Image Deletion
- 11 Please, delete all of my fanon
- 12 Hosting Questions
- 13 Fanon Deletion (ASAP Please!!)
- 14 cussing
- 15 Blakesims1999
- 16 Request deletion of mistakenly added files intended for another Wiki
Fanon Deletation for Rebooting the game[edit source]
Can all my Fanon be Deleted Please I have to Rebooted my game. Solonor1987, 17 February 2020 (Canada)
The Sims 2: University - newly uploaded images licensing[edit source]
Hey, I'm so sorry. I only realised after uploading that I forgot to put licenses on all the newly uploaded The Sims 2: University images, I tried re-uploading with licenses but it doesn't look like it's going through.
Please help me with this.
User page[edit source]
PsychoactiveSushi User page has the s word Cassandra1201 14:41, March 13, 2020 (UTC)
Page Deletion[edit source]
Hello, I'd like to request the Shouji and Booty pages to be deleted for the following: The content is not pre-made by the supposed game. To further elaborate; they are randomly generated in-game and are therefore not valid. Greetings, Khaemwaset (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:44, April 14, 2020 (UTC) - Please sign your comments with ~~~~
- Please utilize the Pages for deletion venue to request that pages be deleted. Articles that do not need our speedy deletion criteria can only be deleted after a deletion discussion held in the proper venue. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 13:52, April 14, 2020 (UTC)
Open rights request discussion[edit source]
I wanted to raise this issue in a somewhat public forum and seek input from other admins as well as the community at-large regarding how to proceed.
So a little over a week ago, I nominated for Content Moderator rights. In the time since that nomination was agreed-to by Gvaudoin, only one person has spoken to the nomination. If you take my nomination as well as C.Syde65's comment in favor, the request currently is approved by all who have chosen to speak to it. However, I doubt that the concurrence of two members of the wiki could be considered to be a 'consensus,' especially for the purposes of promoting another user.
The Requests for Modship page lays out the process by which new mods are selected. It says in step two that, "The period of discussion on a Content Moderator promotion should last at least seven (7) days." The procedures go on to say, in step three, that "If, after seven days of discussion ... there is no clear consensus in favor of the promotion, the discussion will end and the candidate will not be promoted." The letter of the rule seems to suggest that the nomination/promotion has failed due to lack of consensus, but it's unusual and noteworthy because the lack of consensus wasn't due to opposition (or at least, not due to opposition that was voiced in the discussion) but rather the lack of consensus is due to a lack of participation. I think the spirit of the rule was meant to assume that promotion discussions would have enough participation to be able to effectively render a definite outcome one way or the other, which is not the case in this scenario.
So it seems to me that we have a few options. The first is to leave the discussion open past the seven-day window, until we have enough participation to reach a point where we would be comfortable determining consensus. The second would be to close the nomination and promote Gvaudoin, since the discussion had been open for ample time for interested parties to participate and none but one chose to do so. The third would be to close the nomination and not promote Gvaudoin, since though her nomination received no formal opposition, it didn't receive enough support from enough people to represent community consensus or consent for promotion.
Of the options I've given, the first one seems to me to be the best approach. Promoting based on the affirmative voices of two members of the community would be, in my opinion, acting without clear consensus to do so, since consensus requires not only a general agreement among discussion participants, but also requires that enough members of the community participate in the first place. The third option would likewise be bad, as it would essentially treat a discussion that fails through lack of participation the same way as a discussion that failed due to community opposition.
However, as I was the user who nominated Gvaudoin in the first place, I have a bias; I cannot be the one to decide what is to be done, as that could be seen as an abuse of power. I'm hoping that by bringing this up here, we can land on a suitable solution that has broader administrative backing. -- LostInRiverview talk · blog · contribs 01:18, April 26, 2020 (UTC)
- I suggest we keep the nomination open a few more days longer until more users have showed an interest in participating in the voting process. Maybe we should perhaps reconsider changing the 7-day voting period if this becomes an issue in the future, but that's a discussion for another day. ~ Beds (talk - blog) 21:16, April 29, 2020 (UTC)
- I've removed the timer from the nomination, but left everything else as-is. Removing the timer seems to me to be the "least bad" option open right now. The question now would be, what happens if we don't get more input? How long can the request be left open without a conclusion? -- LostInRiverview talk · blog · contribs 05:36, April 30, 2020 (UTC)
- Okay, an addendum is required here. I was looking over the RfA procedures as a prelude to a possible proposed amendment to RfM and RfA processes to de-emphasize the "seven days" timeline. RfA's procedure is slightly different from RfM's, and that slight difference does pertain to this exact problem. Let me show you what I mean.
- The following is the currently-written procedure for closing out a Moderator request:
- If, after seven days of discussion, there appears to be consensus in favor of promotion, the candidate will be promoted. If there is no clear consensus in favor of the promotion, the discussion will end and the candidate will not be promoted.
- And the following is how Requests for Administratorship/Bureaucratship are handled (some non-relevant bits are excluded from this copy):
- A period of discussion shall last at least seven days.
- After the seven day period of discussion has elapsed, it shall be determined whether a consensus in favor of or against promotion has been reached.
- If the discussion shows consensus for a nominee, the nomination is successful and the user is promoted. If the discussion shows consensus against a promotion, the nomination will end and the nominee will not be promoted.
- After the initial seven-day discussion period, if consensus either for or against promotion is not present, discussion will continue until there is a two-day long period, or longer, in which nothing is added to the discussion.
- If this occurs and a consensus for promotion exists, the nomination is successful and the user is promoted.
- If this occurs and a consensus for promotion does not exist, the nomination will end and the nominee will not be promoted. This will occur even if a consensus against promotion does not exist.
- If discussion continues for ten or more days, and it is determined by at least two bureaucrats that progress towards consensus is not occurring, the nomination will end and the nominee will not be promoted.
- I'd be interested in a broader discussion of whether these time frames are needed or should be extended or eliminated. However, that doesn't really solve the matter at hand. It might be simplest just to apply the RfA procedure to RfMs, since they do seem to be largely striving towards the same goal. However, it strikes me as quite unusual and perhaps unfair to alter the procedure for promotions while a promotion is being considered. But I'd like to hear what others think about this.
- As an additional "fly in the ointment," the RfA page makes a point of defining consensus as being a general agreement of "users engaged in the discussion (including the nominating user, if applicable)" [emphasis mine]. The RfA definition of consensus doesn't take into account total level of participation, merely whether those who chose to participate were able to reach an agreement. If you'll recall, my initial hesitation with OKing the promotion in the first place is regarding the low level of participation in discussion. Reading the RfA definition by-the-letter would seem to indicate that low turnout is irrelevant, but I also wonder if perhaps low turnout would violate the spirit of that definition, regardless of how it's written. I suppose it all boils down to the fact that, prior to this, RfAs, RfBs, and RfMs have always received reliable community input. This is the first time that I can remember where it hasn't been the case. It could be that we never conceived of an issue where consensus might fail due to lack of participation, versus a lack of agreement among those who participated.
- Any thoughts as to all of this? -- LostInRiverview talk · blog · contribs 05:53, April 30, 2020 (UTC)
- Okay, it's been a couple weeks, and in that time, the nomination discussion has received more input. Right now, it's at the point where I'd be more comfortable closing it out, with the outcome being in favor of granting rights. However, I am hesitant to close the discussion and promote the user because I was the one that nominated her in the first place. I've messaged k6ka, the only other active bureaucrat on the wiki, on two separate occasions to ask him to act, but so far he has not.
- Any thoughts as to all of this? -- LostInRiverview talk · blog · contribs 05:53, April 30, 2020 (UTC)
- I'm personally of the belief that consensus exists for the promotion. If there is disagreement over whether that is the case, now is the time to speak up. I'll leave this and the nomination discussion open for three or four more days, unless k6ka decides to act ahead of then. Otherwise, I plan on promoting Gvaudoin myself, unless there is objection here. -- LostInRiverview talk · blog · contribs 18:30, May 13, 2020 (UTC)
Would making the Urbz 2 page be ok? I found this from 2011
Request to delete fanon[edit source]
Fanon Deletion Hi! Can the following Fanon please be deleted as soon as possible?
- Beau Duff
- Dominique Hart
- Don Baxter Lothario
- Destiny Palmer
- Jarred Palmer
- Thomas Palmer
- Zoë Swan
Brandon / Hardin / Cragen multiple accounts[edit source]
have been editing fanons created under the mentioned names. I'm highly certain that they are the same person for the following reasons:
- Their usernames match the military theme, with similar "real names" in their user page.
- Their activities involve editing the same fanons but under different accounts.
- None of the lifetime of each user overlaps; when the new one started, the old one never edited anymore (the 2nd and 3rd only had 30 minutes difference!).
Under TSW:AMA policy, it's strictly forbidden to create multiple accounts, and the user appeared to forget the username / password every time they logged in to the wiki. My other concern is what do we do to maintain the (IMO, low-quality) fanons created under those accounts? Nikel Talk 03:52, July 1, 2020 (UTC)
Fanon Deletion![edit source]
Hello, Can the following Fanon please be deleted:
- -Mike Palmer
- -Charlotte Swan
- -simvalley (neighbourhood)
- -Jade Palmer
- -Lily Palmer
- -Sapphire Palmer
- -Kaylynn Langerak Caliente
Fanon Deletion Hi! Can the following Fanon please be deleted: -Joe Swan -Angela Pittman -Bella Goth (GingerxNinjax) -Dina Caliente (GingerxNinjax) -Lilia Palmer -Mike Palmer -Charlotte DelTroy -Charlotte Palmer -Mike Bachelor -Veronica Landgraab -Misti Landgraab -Chocolate Landgraab Thankyou :) GingerxNinjax (talk) 07:44, August 10, 2020 (UTC)GingerxNinjax
Image deletion[edit source]
Hello, could the following image file be deleted please? It's my user avatar which has got a name too simple and may cause inconvenience for others' edits. Thank you :))
Fanon and Image Deletion[edit source]
Hello. I would like to ask if my fanon pages Azura Lapis and Azura Vs Vladislaus can be removed. Along with the image i created and use for the fanon page. WizardJeremy (talk) 02:25, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Please, delete all of my fanon[edit source]
I just want all my fanon stuff to be deleted. Please, give me an answer back!
Hosting Questions[edit source]
Hello! I was wondering if you wanted this Wiki and all of it's content to be placed somewhere new. I am alerting you about hosting a wiki about The Sims on a domain. I was wondering if you'd want this.
Fanon Deletion (ASAP Please!!)[edit source]
Hello! about a few months ago i have written into the noticeboard to have the following pages listed deleted permanently, but have had no response. hopefully someone here can help me out as i want these deleted ASAP !! The Following Fanon of mine i would like to have deleted please is:
- Angela Pittman
- Charlotte DelTroy
- Charlotte Palmer
- Joe Swan
- Mike Bachelor
- Misti Landgraab
- Veronica Landgraab
K6ka has the f word on his user page and others can’t it is against the policy’s —Preceding unsigned comment added by OneMillionMoms (talk • contribs) 16:37, March 17, 2021 (UTC) - Please sign your comments with ~~~~
- Wiki policy prohibits swearing/curse words on any page on the wiki. However, it makes no reference to prohibition against self-censored cursing. It would be inappropriate to include it on a content page, to be sure. But, on a user page, I don't see any harm in allowing its usage so long as it's included within reason. My preference in this case would be to take no action. -- LostInRiverview talk · blog · contribs 19:00, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
That's a user called Blakesims1999 who don't stop put message on my wall i dont know what's his problem is, but if he doesn't like LGBT people he should leave me alone do something I erase what he say but he will attack again can you do something Simsgamerzz1987
Request deletion of mistakenly added files intended for another Wiki[edit source]
Hello there, I have mistakenly added files to this wiki that were actually intended for Age of Empires wiki. Can you delete these files, as they do not have any business in this Wiki. Thank you!
File:Lao Chen History DE.png
File:Pravar Patel History DE.png
File:Nanib Sahir History DE.png
File:Colonel Edwardson History DE.png
File:Bahadur Shah History DE.png