The Sims Wiki:Administrators' noticeboard

Shortcut TSW:AN

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.

Archives 1 2 3

Fanon Deletation for Rebooting the game

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

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.

Marina x

User page

PsychoactiveSushi User page has the s word Cassandra1201 14:41, March 13, 2020 (UTC)

Page Deletion

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

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 Gvaudoin (talk · contribs · editcount · block · modify rights · logs · block log) 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.

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLGxgLe2V1I

Admin Gay (talk) 04:53, May 20, 2020 (UTC)

Request to delete fanon

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

Thankyou! :)

GingerxNinjax (talk) 08:26, June 16, 2020 (UTC)GingerxNjnjax

Hi, I've deleted those fanons by your request. Nikel _Talk 04:18, July 1, 2020 (UTC)

Brandon / Hardin / Cragen multiple accounts

These users:

1. IABLieutenantAllen (talk · contribs · editcount · block · modify rights · logs · block log)
2. CaptainSergeantHardin (talk · contribs · editcount · block · modify rights · logs · block log)
3. LieutenantAlexCragen (talk · contribs · editcount · block · modify rights · logs · block log)
4. CaptainHardin2020 (talk · contribs · editcount · block · modify rights · logs · block log)

have been editing fanons created under the mentioned names. I'm highly certain that they are the same person for the following reasons:

1. Their usernames match the military theme, with similar "real names" in their user page.
2. Their activities involve editing the same fanons but under different accounts.
3. 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)

Users have been blocked. And their fanons have been deleted. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 12:14, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Fanon Deletion!

Hello, Can the following Fanon please be deleted:

• -Mike Palmer
• -Charlotte Swan
• -simvalley (neighbourhood)
• -Jade Palmer
• -Lily Palmer
• -Sapphire Palmer
• -Kaylynn Langerak Caliente

Thankyou :) GingerxNinjax (talk) 10:10, August 3, 2020 (UTC)GingerxNinjax

Done! :) ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 10:43, August 3, 2020 (UTC)

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

Pages have been deleted! :) ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 09:06, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Image deletion

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 :))

• Sonia https://sims.fandom.com/wiki/File:Sonia.png

-Rz4ever (talk) 07:22, October 11, 2020 (UTC)

Done! :) ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 20:36, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Fanon and Image Deletion

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)

Done! :) ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 20:36, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Please, delete all of my fanon

I just want all my fanon stuff to be deleted. Please, give me an answer back!

Oo-Lysander-oO (talk) 16:38, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Done! :) ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 20:36, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Hosting Questions

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.

Quaverstand15 (talk) 04:05, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Fanon Deletion (ASAP Please!!)

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

Thankyou !! GingerxNinjax (talk) 04:29, 8 February 2021 (UTC)GingerxNinjax

Pages have been deleted! :) ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 09:06, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

cussing

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)

Blakesims1999

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

The user has been blocked. -- LostInRiverview ^{talk · blog · contribs} 21:57, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Request deletion of mistakenly added files intended for another Wiki

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:Urcuchillay Worship.png

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

Haeloth (talk) 02:56, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Images have been deleted! :) ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 09:06, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Help

i was trying to nomante C.Syde65 for berucrat but it said i was peverting other peopls to requst i was not doing that i just wanting to nominate. Cassandra1201 15:49, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi

There is a new sims game called paralifes Ardnassac17839 (talk) 17:50, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Games 4 The World

is game 4 the world safe and legal?

Laundry Image Removal

Someone can remove all of my previous laundry room images from the file story? https://imgur.com/Bnvfl4B

Oo-Lysander-Oo

Is there a particular reason why the previous versions of that image need to be deleted? Uploading a new version of the image (or overwriting a previous image with a new one of the same name) makes it so the overwritten image doesn't appear anymore when the image is placed on a page. Generally we'd only delete a previous version of a page if there's a reason to delete it; otherwise, just overwriting it with new content is usually good enough. —LostInRiverview ^{talk · blog · contribs} 23:14, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Sock. Puppet

I saw user:JonasWirhalt2014 and he made the same edit as JonasWirhalt2012. I think the master is JonasWirhalt2008. It is in the history of grim reaper. IAmACoolGuy1999 (talk) 17:11, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Delete All My Fanon for Renaming My Username

I already put them into speedy deletion. That's because I changed my username! CooldownMint11 (talk) 15:57, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Judith Ward

This comment left on this talk page is extremely spurious and possibly offensive to some - it claims this sim may be transgender on extremely questionable grounds. Should this be deleted? RedWizard98 (talk) 00:13, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Fanon:Serena Durwood

This is a fanon page published by a user with over 200 fanon articles (Michah-l-lucas). I don't know if this is a problem, but this fanon article is basically a verbatim copy of the actual article, containing no fanon features. Should this be deleted along with all others like it? Maybe we should ask the creator if they consider it abandoned. RedWizard98 (talk) 00:13, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Privacy information, please delete.

Help, I accidentally entered personal information in version 1030247 (10 june 2023) of my user page, first names are fake but last names (except Hellhound) are real, can it be hidden? Please, I regretted doing this. The version to be deleted in the history is the penultimate and contains an Infobox family. StomboyTSfan (talk) 14:29, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Done —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 14:32, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Black850

This user vandalized a page(content pack) after being blocked for vandalism to remove The Sims 4 references. I undid the edit but I think this user should get blocked. PhysicalMediaHound 13:13(UTC) June 24 2023

Please Delete My Fanon

Hi, I am putting in a request for all of my Fanon to be deleted. So anything labeled The-Storyteller2 I want deleted. Here is a link to all the Fanon I've created, :Category:Fanon created and owned by The-Storyteller2. I don't see myself updating those pages in the foreseeable future. Also, if possible please delete this Fanon page as well, Fanon:Parker Family. I created this one years ago on an account I don't use anymore and I want it gone too. Please and thank you. The-Storyteller2 (talk) 16:30, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I will delete this content for you, thank you for letting us know. RedWizard98 (talk) 16:31, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

In addition, do you want all your fanon image uploads deleted too? RedWizard98 (talk) 16:43, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, delete all fanon image uploads too. I have everything backed up and saved somewhere else. The-Storyteller2 (talk) 16:56, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

So far I've deleted about 20 articles and a few images. I or an admin will delete the rest soon. RedWizard98 (talk) 19:04, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Requesting AutoWikiBrowser rights

LiR told me on Discord that this page is where I can request AWB rights, as opposed to as part of the mod applications. So here I am to request access, I guess.

User:Dandelion_Sprout/AutoWikiBrowser_proposals can be used as a rule-of-thumb guide for the sorts of edits I'd do with such rights. Here's hoping it goes well. Dandelion Sprout (talk) 14:33, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Would you run AWB through your own account, or would you set up a separate bot account? -- LostInRiverview ^{talk · blog · contribs} 15:28, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

The situation is that I never really learned how to set up a separate and bot-only Fandom or MediaWiki account, so it'd be easiest for me to run it through my own account. Dandelion Sprout (talk) 15:35, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

It's really simple on your end. All you'd need to do is have your request approved, create a new Fandom account, then log into AWB with the new account instead of your main account. We would flag the new account with a Bot flag so that its edits don't show up on Recent Changes. Then you'd run AWB as normal, and its edits would be associated with the new account instead of your main account. If you have an extensive or significant list of edits you'd like to do with AWB, I'd strongly recommend using a second Bot account. We generally won't give Bot flags to a main account, because then even your manual edits won't show up in Recent Changes, and running a lot of edits with AWB through your unflagged main account would be very disruptive to Recent Changes. -- LostInRiverview ^{talk · blog · contribs} 18:36, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

In that case, give me a day or two to attempt to create a 2nd account. Dandelion Sprout (talk) 18:43, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

I'd suggest waiting until the request is okayed. It wouldn't make sense to have a second account if the request is denied. We don't need to know the name of the new account yet; that can all be handled after the request goes through.

On the subject of the request... In your RfM you highlighted your experience with AWB on other wikis, and your desire to use it to do mass editing. Your proposed edits list seems sufficient enough to justify granting access to you. I support the request. -- LostInRiverview ^{talk · blog · contribs} 18:55, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

After 3 months, 1 vote in favour, and 0 against, as well as some of my health problems having been resolved, I officially claim that the vote is closed and was approved. I am now ready to continue the AWB bot creation process. Dandelion Sprout (talk) 20:13, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

After an additional 1 month and 20 days on top of the above, still 1 vote in favour and 0 against, I once again declare victory through having a 100% consensus. Dandelion Sprout (talk) 09:42, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

• Sorry, I simply cannot support. While I don't doubt DS's technical abilities to use AWB, I simply cannot approve this request with Dandelion Sprout trying to close their own request and declaring "victory", as if getting AWB access was an uphill battle to fight. They have a fundamental misunderstanding of how the wiki operates; the wiki is based on collaboration, not pridefulness. I am also extremely unhappy with their behaviour on Discord, casting aspersions on the admin team and having a battleground mentality where they think everyone is out to get them. For behavioural reasons, I cannot trust Dandelion Sprout with AWB access, and thus I cannot support this request. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 13:31, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

You did go out to get me from July through October 2023. It's not even a question.

• You thought me reacting with hinting emotes in `#wiki-edits` was obstructing.
• You were supposedly frightened when I called for bans on an extremely bad-faith Pixar Cars vandalist.
• You thought me DM-ing you about an ongoing quarrel in mid-October was "very inappropriate", which is not how Discord adminship is supposed to work.
• You denied the very existence of an anti-WEBP movement, despite how it doesn't take much browsing around the internet to find millions of people within that unofficial movement.

You consistently and uninterruptedly treated me in bad faith, and treated me as someone who had to be scorned roughly weekly for non-issues. At that point, I realised I had had enough of being repeatedly bullied no matter what I did or what I wrote, and de facto went to sleep for 6 weeks straight. I've had to make my case about this at long last, after several months of me not having the stamina to do so. I do acknowledge the general tone has been much better in the past 1½-2 hours, but at that time (4 January 2024) the situation seemed unsalvageable. Dandelion Sprout (talk) 02:57, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

The things you've pointed out have either been blown out of proportion, or are misinterpretations of what was actually said.

• You thought me reacting with hinting emotes in `#wiki-edits` was obstructing. This originates from your request for content moderator, where my actual quote is: Using emoji reactions on the Discord wiki recent changes feed is not an appropriate substitute for dispute resolution, as it comes across as more of a personal venting of frustration than anything actually productive.. I did not use the word "obstructing" or anything similar to describe it, only that it was "not an appropriate substitute for dispute resolution".
• You were supposedly frightened when I called for bans on an extremely bad-faith Pixar Cars vandalist. I can find no record of a "Pixar Cars vandalist", but I do recall that the conversation (viewable here) was about SusanPearman101 uploading low quality files to the wiki. Their edits were not vandalism (in fact, they were made in good faith; they were trying to help the wiki, even if misguided), and they hadn't even been notified about their edits yet. Of course I would be concerned that there were suddenly calls to block them. I later explained to you that we prefer attempts at dispute resolution first, and utilize blocks only as a last resort when that doesn't work.
• You thought me DM-ing you about an ongoing quarrel in mid-October was "very inappropriate", which is not how Discord adminship is supposed to work. This is an incorrect re-telling of the incident. Here is the DM conversation we had. You asked me to tell other users you were having an argument with to "shut up", which is indeed completely inappropriate, and completely inappropriate for moderation. The argument was about WEBP, which I explain below:
• You denied the very existence of an anti-WEBP movement, despite how it doesn't take much browsing around the internet to find millions of people within that unofficial movement. This incident was discussed with the other Discord moderators. The moderators had no opinion over the "anti-WEBP cult" (and whether one believes in that is completely irrelevant to anything on The Sims Wiki), but what the moderators did agree is that your behaviour on the server was completely inappropriate. The conversation can be found here.

Presently, what I am seeing is a pattern of:

• Assuming bad faith from others (based on the "anti-WEBP" debacle, where you assumed that people who were not supportive of the WEBP format were out to "squeeze you" out of the project).
• Refusing to acknowledge or listen to feedback (my oppose of your content moderatorship nomination encouraged you to work on dispute resolution, which you have presently done the exact opposite of; I also note that you blocked me on Discord, so you clearly took none of the feedback I gave you there).
• A preference for causing disputes (as evidenced in this message where you openly bragged about the "beefs" you had with "300 groups of people").
• An overall uncollaborative and overly hostile attitude when another editor reverts, undoes, or modifies your changes (as evidenced in this message, which was made in response to this edit).
• A tendency to cast aspersions and make aggressive comments towards other editors, in particular other members of the admin team. I've linked to those messages in my initial message on 4 January 2024. In particular, this edit summary where you utter If the admins have absolutely no confidence in their own users whatsoever and want people to do this the hard way, I'll give them the hard way..
• A tendency to believe that, when you are opposed, criticized, or otherwise unable to get your way, that you are treated like a "drooling idiot who cannot be trusted to even use a tablespoon safely" and a "toddler who can't even be trusted to hold a spoon to eat the lukewarm oatmeal". I don't know where you are drawing these over-the-top conclusions, but if you're making these incredibly harsh comments towards other editors, that's not conducive of a collaborative environment.

You're a productive editor: no one is denying that. But you have some incredibly severe behavioural issues that is presently damaging your own relationship with the wiki community, and with the collaborative nature of the wiki, where editors are expected to resolve disputes through civil discourse and consensus-building; assume good faith on the parts of each other; be open and responsive to feedback and criticism; and not take criticism as a personal attack. Unfortunately, you have not been doing these things—basic, fundamental principles of the wiki—which is why we are presently here.

My advice for you moving forward is simple: either you acknowledge that your present behaviour is not acceptable, that you have failed to assume good faith and have accused others of acting in bad faith (which, I will quote: Making accusations of bad faith can be inflammatory and they are usually not helpful in a dispute, as it may appear to be a personal attack. Users that claim that others are acting in bad faith, without providing proper evidence to prove the claim, may themselves be acting in bad faith. This also can often create a negative cycle of bad-faith accusations that ultimately solves nothing.), that your current mindset is creating a self-fulfilling cycle where you are frustrated over criticism and become increasingly hostile to those you disagree with, that you are presently failing to adhere to basic wiki-editing principles, and that you need to address these issues and resolve them; or you should stop editing the wiki and part ways. We'd hate to lose productive editors, but speaking as a prominent editor on the English Wikipedia: dealing with a productive editor that is hostile towards other editors is being stuck between a rock and a hard place; however, ultimately, the health of the project as a whole involves keeping the atmosphere of the wiki an open and collaborative one, and the project may find the hostility of an editor to outweigh the positives of their productive contributions. You should consider carefully, because one thing is true: The Sims Wiki was built by many, many people working together; not one person can claim to own it or be essential to its operation, and the wiki will continue to function if an editor stopped editing tomorrow. You should consider whether the community ultimately finds all of the kerfuffles I listed above to be worth having you as an editor, because from experience wiki communities generally don't, once everybody's patience with the problematic behaviour has been exhausted.

As this thread was about your request for AWB, I think I need to reiterate that your outburst ultimately shows that you are not ready for AWB access—a position of trust that I don't think you have demonstrated. I'm not even sure if I would even support a request for rollback at this point. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 04:37, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Merging the Bella Goth pages?

Hi, I've been thinking about how there are three different Bella Goth pages despite all three being canonly Bella Goth. I don't know why they have their own specific pages (aside to make the original page shorter) and what puzzles me even more is that the PSP version of Strangetown Bella is on the main page but Strangetown Bella isn't? I've added merge templates on Bella Goth (Lunar Lakes) and Bella Goth (Strangetown). However, I worry that since it'd be such a major page on the wiki, that'd be an major move. I know, be bold, but I'm being cautious because I see it as a major change that some visitors and (perhaps) users might not be fond of. — ℙ𝖎𝖊𝖗𝖈𝖊ℝ𝖊𝖉𝖆𝖈𝖙𝖊𝖉 (talk) • (fanon) 00:32, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Problematic unknown user

There is an anonymous user (https://sims.fandom.com/wiki/Special:Contributions/174.239.98.239 and https://sims.fandom.com/wiki/Special:Contributions/107.19.24.172) who goes around emptying pages, publish blank pages with no sense words and inserting fake "User blocked" templates on discussion pages. StomboyTSfan (talk) 21:04, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

I accidentally broke a temple in personally. 174.239.123.38 (talk) 18:20, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

We would politely ask that you stop doing these things to prevent yourself from being accused of vandalism. Making mistakes is permissible, but they become more problematic the more frequent they become. Thank you. RedWizard98 (talk) 21:13, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Was advised to suggest filename changes here

While I'm genuinely scared of the noticeboard, I figured based on User_talk:Dandelion_Sprout#Moving_files_2, "I'll give it one chance".

I also honestly thought there were more than 3 affected files involving the filename pattern, but sure:

• File:TS3 2018-07-16 21-38-43-35.jpg → Lisa Bunch outside a house.jpg
• File:TS3 2018-07-16 21-56-03-75.jpg → Parker Langerak in the middle of the street.jpg
• File:TS3 2018-07-16 23-05-03-40.jpg → Laighton Sekemoto on a terrace.jpg

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dandelion Sprout (talk • contribs) 02:24, 10 February 2024‎ (UTC) - Please sign your comments with ~~~~

Done —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 02:52, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Vandalism

The image File:Nina Caliente farting.jpg should be deleted because it's a pure act of vandalism, the user who upload this file is User:Farting Flatulent Fun.

StomboyTSfan (talk) 17:05, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Restoration of the Fanon:Lyla Johnson page

It appears I will be needing this page after all. Would you mind restoring it?

IFanon (talk) 20:21, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Deleted images

I decided to try and fix red links, and I discovered that several were due to deletions on the basis of lack of use. For further reference, images should be placed in the pages themselves, not linked, and use the "What links here" tool next when deleting files. Images that should be restored are:

File:Sim stealing old newspaper.png (This one wasn't even linked, it was used, but it's somehow been gone for years)

The list is likely longer, but I decided to stop there. Please restore when anyone has a free hour or so. I’m K.P.! Toss me a message if you need help! 15:08, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Request: Rename a file

Hi, I recently uploaded File:Olde Salty card.png without knowing that card actually shows his brother Pepper Pete. I was wondering if you could change it to "Pepper Pete card.png". It's only used in one page (Pepper Pete) so it won't break any links, as I'll make sure to correct it there. Thanks in advance! -p6tgel (? · talk) 19:18, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Of course! Done, and I've also updated the file link. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 20:09, 15 April 2024 (UTC)