Replacement filing cabinet

Resolved discussions by year
2010 · 2011 · 2012 · 2013 · 2014

This is the Admin Portal Talk Page, abbreviated as the APTP. This page is used by administrators to discuss administrative action, responsibilities, and tasks.

While non-administrators are more than welcome to read, browse, and link to discussions on this talk page, they cannot actively take part in discussions. If you wish to contact an administrator, or if you require assistance with anything else that is administrator-related, please start a thread at the administrators' noticeboard.

These rules have taken effect as of July 31, 2014. Before this date, non-administrators were allowed to participate in discussions on this page, so you may see non-administrators posting here. The proposal and discussion can be found here.

Issues editing wiki navigation menu

Red x cross uncheck bad
Issue is not resolved
Width check is still broken, it would seem. But then again, this thread has been open for way too long. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 21:43, November 28, 2016 (UTC)

Due to custom css styling on the wiki navigation menu, we are unable to edit the menu. Right now, the style applied to the menu increases the Level 1 menu beyond the maximum width, so that even if no changes are made, the editor warns that the menu is too wide and refuses to let you publish any edits to the menu. I temporarily removed the css style applied to the menu and was then able to successfully make edits to the menu, so that is definitely the culprit here. Knowing that, we have a few options. We could try editing the menu to reduce the width of the level 1 menu, but I don't think that's practical. We could try finding a way to redesign the theme so it doesn't make the menu as wide; it could work, but it would be tedious. We could simply remove the styling from the menu whenever we want to edit the menu, though again it would be tedious. Or we could simply remove the styling from the menu altogether, which would be the simplest solution, but we'd also lose the style that is applied to the menu. -- LostInRiverview talkblogcontribs 14:29, April 5, 2015 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Wiki-navigation has a width check when you attempt to save the page. Normally, this width check is supposed to prevent issues with the navbar, such as menus that are too big, so text spills out, or having too many tabs that won't fit. However, this width check is dependent on the web browser and not the actual settings for the wiki. So if your browser happens to supersize the text, tough luck — the width checker will think the tabs won't fit when they do.
There are ways to bypass this width check, however, as mentioned at w:Thread:734913. Examples include:
  • Copying the following code into your personal CSS page:
/* Special thanks to User:452 for this! Original taken from */
/* This thing fixes the broken width check in MediaWiki:Wiki-navigation */
.ArticlePreviewInner .WikiHeader li.nav-item a {
  /* Because the width check is broken. */ 
  margin: 0;
  padding: 0;
Keep in mind that removing the width check also increases the possibility of you messing up the navbar (much like drugs that weaken the immune system reduce the chance of organ rejection after a transplant, but increase the risk of infection). It would probably be best to test changes to the navbar on a test wiki before saving the real thing. --I am k6ka Talk to me! See what I have done 15:32, April 5, 2015 (UTC)

Reduce policy page protection?

I think we should consider reducing the protection level on our policy pages, down to semi-protection for editing (while maintaining sysop-only levels for page moves).

Policies are meant to evolve over time, and aren't meant to be treated as hard and constant rules, at least most of the time. Allowing autoconfirmed users to correct issues on policy pages, and make modifications to those pages if relevant, would help to encourage those policies to evolve over time. Additionally, we have enough admins and rollbackers on the wiki to combat any vandalism that might occur. - LostInRiverview talkblogcontribs 18:12, May 5, 2015 (UTC)

I'd be up for this. I don't really see any problems with it. As long as they are autoconfirmed users, and they agree to not vandalise or remove important information from the page, then I see absolutely no problem with it. ~ Beds (talk - blog) 19:21, May 5, 2015 (UTC)
Support provided that there is a notice added to the top of policy pages that tells users that "Changes made to the policy pages should reflect consensus," much like Wikipedia does. --I am k6ka Talk to me! See what I have done 19:30, May 5, 2015 (UTC)
Agree with K6ka's point. {{Policy}} can easily be modified to reflect that language. -- LostInRiverview talkblogcontribs 19:56, May 5, 2015 (UTC)
Any more input? -- LostInRiverview talkblogcontribs 06:29, June 20, 2015 (UTC)
Bump --I am k6ka Talk to me! See what I have done 02:28, July 25, 2015 (UTC)
I support this as well. -- Icemandeaf (talk) 02:33, July 25, 2015 (UTC)

Weak oppose, mainly because I am of the opinion that policies are something that should be discussed before changes are written on the slate. I am also of the opinion that our long-standing users are often well informed of the be bold clause of our policy, which already makes our policy more of a loose one than a strict one. However, I am all for allowing registered users to make changes to the policies after all discussions are made. MILK FOR THE UNYUUFEX, FLAT CHEST FOR THE CUTENESS THRONE, SKULLS FOR THE SKULL PROBES (user talk:Mathetesalexandrou) 01:03, July 26, 2015 (UTC)

Any controversial edits made to the policy pages that have not been approved by consensus can always be reverted immediately and the user advised to seek discussion to obtain approval from the community. Reducing page protection does not change that fact; even if I decided to amend the policies myself without consensus, I would certainly be reverted. --I am k6ka Talk to me! See what I have done 01:25, July 26, 2015 (UTC)

Topnav menu issues on smaller displays

It appears as though the wiki navigation menu is displayed incorrectly when the wiki is viewed on a lower resolution, such as on a tablet. Namely, the 'Interaction' tab on the navbar is "wrapped" down to the second line, so it collides with the secondary menu text and makes the Interaction menu inaccessible. Any thoughts as to a possible solution? - LostInRiverview talkblogcontribs 03:07, June 22, 2015 (UTC)

Well, technically we've been violating the navigation all along. Under normal circumstances, the current navigation cannot be edited and submitted unless we make a workaround. It was an odd decision since the navigation looked just fine and all the menus fit pretty well, but I guess it turned out we overlooked this case? Aside from that, I don't have any idea for a solution other than to follow the normal navigation width rule by removing some menus. Nikel Talk Vote! 11:15, June 30, 2015 (UTC)
Nikel, that seemed to be more of a bug (or at least, a very bad update) on Wikia's end. I say this because it was broken on the latest version of Google Chrome, but I tried using an older version of Chrome (and on Firefox) and it apparently worked fine. The page has a width check that's entirely dependent on the browser, and each browser is different. --I am k6ka Talk to me! See what I have done 12:33, June 30, 2015 (UTC)

Discussing a new approach

This might seem a bit out of place considering we have (recently) been quite lucky to be free of the most of the repeat sockpuppeters. I hope that this lasts, but my fear is that it is a momentary lull. And, if we assume that the good times will not last, then we assume that there will come a point when the "usual suspects" will return to their ways. I would like for us to agree on a different approach to handing these issues moving forward. Simply put, I think our attitude at present towards sockpuppets and puppet-masters does more harm to the wiki than it mitigates.

We've been dealing with a relatively constant onslaught of sock puppets, and that has put us in a warzone mentality. We often block users based solely on their username, without any benefit of the doubt or assumption of good faith, without an honest attempt to perform a CheckUser, and often before the user has even made their first edit to the wiki. I have argued in private with others that this it is a mistake to react in this way, as it gives the puppeteers exactly what they are looking for. Consider: do you think that a puppet master would create an account that is an obvious sock, unless they intended to be blocked? The natural response to this question would be, "well, if they're knowingly breaking the rules (which they are), then isn't blocking them exactly what we should be doing?" I think that the answer is "no."

How would not blocking them solve our problem? Well, for starters, I'm not arguing against all blocks, I'm simply arguing against blocks issued only because of multiple account ownership. What would this do? Consider an example:

Let's say that an account named "ILoveTheSims20" is created on The Sims Wiki. Currently, this name rings enough bells to bring about a permanent block, even if ILTS20 doesn't actually make an edit on the wiki. Under this new "doctrine," judgment would be reserved until that user starts to edit. If they make positive edits, then under this idea, they would not be blocked. This is a good thing, since TSW has gained an editor that makes positive contributions. Alternatively, ILTS20 could choose to attack a user or vandalize the wiki, in which case a block dependent on their actions would be justified. Currently, even if we give the benefit of the doubt to a suspected sock in the first place, they're essentially on two-strikes already because we know or strongly suspect a sock; once they do anything to "reveal" themselves, the punishment is swift and permanent. I would argue that we should treat them just as we would any other first-time violator.

So to boil this down, a sock is born and can either 1) become a good member, and stay or, 2) be a bad member, at which point our normal warn/block cycle can take over. I should add that this whole concept hinges on one other idea.

Indefinite blocks should be incredibly rare, and should almost never be without the choice of appeal. I would argue that we should reform our appeals system to prevent abuse, by mandating that a user cannot appeal for a certain length of time after the beginning of a block. This is because an appeal is not usually used to allege a lack of wrongdoing, it's used to request clemency. We could write in something to the effect that users alleging that a block is unjustified may appeal at once (and provide sufficient proof to that point), but users who simply want to ask for a second chance must wait for an assigned period of time before doing so.

By no means do I think what I'm proposing will fix things. But right now I feel as though we need to do something. The warzone mentality I've mentioned before is damaging to the wiki as a whole. We are so apprehensive of new users, and we've grown to doubt even our more established users for fear that they could be colluding with trolls and sock puppeters. We've taken to creating secret wikis, making lists and tracking data, and "sock hunting" against these users. We're allowing these few users to dictate how we administrate the wiki. We're allowing them to orchestrate a game, with us and them as opposing players. Unfortunately I don't think this is a game we can win; they have unlimited extra lives, cheats, and an unending boredom, and they will play the game as long as we continue to play with them. By enacting some reforms and making some changes, I think we can end the game. - LostInRiverview talkblogcontribs 02:17, August 5, 2015 (UTC)

That has been my own personal policy when dealing with "possible" sockpuppets. Unless I had proof that the user was truly a sockpuppet, I wouldn't issue a block. However, it seemed that vandalism would usually occur before such proof surfaced and would result in a block for vandalism instead. This is probably why I don't issue many blocks. Needless to say, I do agree that this war zone mentality needs to end. I admit that it is because I started getting that mindset that I was hesitant when a brand new user asked me to adopt them. While it is true that I did eventually accept that request, it wouldn't have taken a couple of days to verify that the user was indeed genuine had it not been for that way of thinking. How many new users have been pushed away because we assumed they were wolves in sheep's clothing? -- Icemandeaf (talk) 07:01, August 5, 2015 (UTC)
I wholeheartedly agree with this proposal. At the moment, our judgmental policy on socks makes us seem like some police state à la Stalin-era USSR. That is most certainly not who we are. We are simply a community of Sims fans ranging from fanatics to casual gamers who come together to compile information and stories surrounding our favourite games. If we want our impression to be just that, we must be more careful when dealing with violations of our by-laws or sockpuppets. As said before, this wiki is not a war zone. This is not a "war on terror". We are not the Bush government. I think I'm going around in circles now, so I'm just going to stop here. —The Tim Man (IHGCTSWAHContribs) 09:02, August 5, 2015 (UTC)
I do think we have been a bit harsh in our approach, blocking users who have yet to make an edit just based on an assumption appears unwelcoming as well as having the risk of catching someone who wasn't involved in an accidental block. I would prefer CheckUser results instead of the way things are being done at the moment. As for not blocking potential socks who are making constructive edits, I am opposed to this. I feel that it makes a mockery of our ban system, and I could probably go even further in that if we didn't block socks, people could just make a complete mess on one account, make a new one, and start over, which completely removes the point of blocks and I can't see it doing anything but spiraling into chaos and removing user accountability. This goes back to what I said above, though - these socks shouldn't be blocked instantly, and only if we've got enough evidence for a CheckUser which turns up positive. If a banned user makes a sock and doesn't ever get caught, that's something that is beyond our control and I suppose that raises more questions, especially if they become a respected contributor/admin and are found out then. Regardless, yeah, something about the current situation does need to change. ђ talk 09:48, August 5, 2015 (UTC)
I'd like to make some comments. First of all, the supposed "blocks without any edits" isn't based solely on username alone. These users showed up on chat first, where they were identified as sockpuppets, usually by disrupting the chat room. Since chat isn't logged, and must be logged manually, I can see why it appears like random users are being blocked for no apparent reason or without solid evidence. Secondly, Wikia seems to be pretty variable on CheckUsers, largely depending on whoever decided to respond to the request. Some many do it without question, others may say that our rationale for requesting a CU isn't sufficient. Also note that CheckUser does not see everything, and someone who uses a proxy server can easily evade any CU. I know some sockpuppets that have escaped detection via a CheckUser, which is why I'm unwilling to say that a CheckUser is required before a block is issued. --I am k6ka Talk to me! See what I have done 21:53, August 7, 2015 (UTC)
I am of the understanding that these username-based potential sockpuppets have indeed turned out to be sockpuppets: I've caught several myself, and one of them were unblocked but eventually re-permabanned. These kind of situation also invalidates the whole "indefinite blocks should be rare" concept, since all those sockpuppets are one person anyways and these indefinite blocks are technically aimed at the few individuals. Should a user named say Corymach28 pop out, this may provoke suspicion, yes. But unless the user is blatantly vandalizing s**t in the Quacks like a Duck manner I'm sure none of us are going to drop a banhammer on that user, much less a permaban. MILK FOR THE UNYUUFEX, FLAT CHEST FOR THE CUTENESS THRONE, SKULLS FOR THE SKULL PROBES (user talk:Mathetesalexandrou) 00:29, August 8, 2015 (UTC)
The whole reason I brought this up is because I feel we need to re-evaluate the stance we've held up to now - the stance that says that sock puppetry is a sin punishable by total banishment here and forevermore. The argument I'm making is that if we wouldn't jump to issuing permanent blocks, especially in the case of sock puppets, then we wouldn't have so many disgruntled sock puppeteers trying to get onto the wiki. In other words, we created this monster. I understand the perspective that turning a blind eye to new socks seems like we're acquiescing to them, but I don't see the harm in doing this. If it gives the impression that we're "surrendering" or allowing them to break the rule, why does it matter so long as they continue to abide by our other policies? Why should we be so headstrong in enforcing the sockpuppet policy, even when it means causing damage to the wiki due to the resultant backlash from that enforcement and the issues caused by community distrust? I am not advocating for an open door to all sock puppeteers past and present, especially those who have been the most disruptive and deliberate in their attempts to break our rules, not just the sockpuppet policy itself. But when a user who is blocked on the wiki turns around and creates a sock puppet, we ought to be more forgiving of this. I don't mean we should let it happen, but I do not think that it warrants the reaction that we've given it up to now. That reaction creates an adversarial attitude and makes them more likely to continue misbehaving. Whereas, if we take a different approach with these users, there's a better chance that they will choose to observe the block we issue and accept our rules when they are allowed to return. But this cannot happen if we insist on being "tough on crime" to the extent where we won't look at each case on an individual basis, and this definitely cannot happen if we rely so heavily on indefinite and permanent blocks. - LostInRiverview talkblogcontribs 00:55, August 8, 2015 (UTC)
That is a good point: I was for giving ILS5 a chance before we came to a conclusion of "screw it permaban" after another sockpuppetry issue. And yes, I still am of the give people all the chance before landing the banhammer stance. However, I'm not seeing any community distrust from our current approach. So while the unblock and rehabilitation part of the policy could definitely see more usage, but I don't think our current approach is unfair. Nonetheless, I'd like to know if some of our permabans on sockpuppets were in fact only due to them being sockpuppets identified by otherwise acceptable behavior that the original has been doing. I am under the understanding that ILS5's socks were largely blocked for trying to create fanon, and turned out mostly legitimate (asides from the underage issue) until the IP vandalism to the Sims3 template. I'd like to know of similar cases occurred. MILK FOR THE UNYUUFEX, FLAT CHEST FOR THE CUTENESS THRONE, SKULLS FOR THE SKULL PROBES (user talk:Mathetesalexandrou) 13:59, August 8, 2015 (UTC)

Custom Javascript disabled

For those not already aware, due to a security issue, Wikia has disabled all custom javascript on all Wikia wikis, including The Sims Wiki. Fortunately our wiki does not make especially extensive use of JS, but there are a couple features on TSW that use it. The only issue I've encountered so far is the TSW twitter widget, which is JS-based and no longer functions; I've hidden it from the main page sidebar until JS is re-enabled. Does anyone know of other material on TSW that is JS-based? - LostInRiverview talkblogcontribs 18:25, August 10, 2015 (UTC)

It now appears as though site-wide css was disabled as well. That is much more significant, especially stylistically. Also, add {{Countdown}} to the list of things that no longer work with javascript disabled. - LostInRiverview talkblogcontribs 18:39, August 10, 2015 (UTC)
Webchat widget on TSW:IRC no longer works (although more intelligent users can still use to connect, or use their own IRC client). All user-enabled gadgets and personal JS/CSS still seems to be working. --I am k6ka Talk to me! See what I have done 23:07, August 10, 2015 (UTC)
CSS was disabled for a period of time (less than 30 minutes) as well, soon after js was disabled. According to Rappy on the ##Wikia IRC channel, CSS being disabled was an accident and was not intentional. Add to the list of things that are missing: auto-refresh on various pages, including the Recent Changes list. -- LostInRiverview talkblogcontribs 00:01, August 11, 2015 (UTC)
Alright, I just checked Community Central. Staff have issued an update, stating that javascript will be re-enabled but it (and all other MediaWiki pages except css pages) will be in read-only mode and will not be able to be edited. This is intended to be a stopgap measure. - LostInRiverview talkblogcontribs 00:05, August 11, 2015 (UTC)

It's been a while so I'll blow the dust off. I've mentioned in the latest weekly news blog:

Additionally, community (site-wide) Javascript will soon change drastically. Wikia is planning to implement a review process for site-wide Javascript. Any new changes made to the community JS files must be approved by a team of Wikia-selected users. Additionally, it will no longer be possible to import Javascript code from the user namespace; some of our scripts does this. We are aware of these changes and appropriate updates to the JS files will be made to ensure our customized scripts will continue to function.

AFAIK only one tool is imported from the User namespace — the license adder tool. We'll need to move that into the MediaWiki namespace and then make the necessary modifications in order to continue to use the tool. It also means we'll have to deal with a loss of freedom with our JS. --I am k6ka Talk to me! See what I have done 01:46, September 15, 2015 (UTC)

Sims2Player and DarkSuicune2000

Icon yes check v
Issue is resolved
Old news. Users left probation almost a year ago anyway [1]k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 21:41, November 28, 2016 (UTC)

For a while now, Sims2Player (talk · contribs · editcount · block · modify rights · logs · block log) and DarkSuicune2000 (talk · contribs · editcount · block · modify rights · logs · block log) have been WikiHounding each other, showing clear incivility and poor response to criticism from each other. Things such as [2] [3] [4], an edit war at [5], [6], [7], and most recently, [8]. I reckon it has something to do with Sims2Player not responding well to criticism per their FE nomination here (and I am perfectly aware of this trait), but this hounding and stalking needs to stop. These two users have a history of not getting along with each other, and while I'm inclined to TSW:AGF and say they're only trying to improve the wiki, in practice they clash together and it takes the joy out of editing The Sims Wiki, especially when someone's criticism, including constructive, are taken as a personal attack by another and a negative response results.

Here are the key points I would like to make here:

  • Blocks are to be preventative, not punitive. Blocks should only be issued on the mindset that they will prevent and deter unacceptable behavior. Blocks should never be used as retaliation, to take sides, or to formally punish users.
  • All editors must engage each other with civility and refrain from personal attacks. Editors are expected to assume good faith, drop old debates, and apologize if they make a mistake.
  • Criticism is not an attack. Quote from Wikipedia:Civility#Incivility: [T]o treat constructive criticism as an attack [is in itself] potentially disruptive. Criticism should not be viewed as an attack, rather as an opportunity to improve. Users who disagree with the criticism should respond to it in a civil manner, and make no mention or hint towards it being an attack. However, criticism can be an attack if it is used or worded improperly. "Your cookies are so bad, you must be a failure at life too" is an example of when criticism is an attack. "Your cookies are a bit bland to the taste. I suggest adding some semi-sweet chocolate chips into the dough to make it tastier" is an example of when criticism is not an attack. Criticism should be focused on the content, not the person who wrote the content.
  • It is OK to disagree, but it is not OK to assume bad faith. As mentioned above, constructive criticism is key to the growing up and development process of all aspects of life. It is OK to disagree with criticism, but it is not OK to think criticism is issued as an attack.
  • Administrative actions should, again, be preventative, not punitive. Per [9], I would like to clarify that any administrative action should only be done to prevent further misconduct, and not simply punish the user. If a child was misbehaving and ate too much junk food, it is not appropriate (or even sensible) to ban them from watching TV, as it does not address the issue at all. On the other hand, if an administrator was abusing rollback, removing their administrative status is a sensible and appropriate action, as rollback is tied to the administrative tools. It is not sensible to ban the administrator from making fanon or chatting with other users as it does not correlate with the issue at hand.

Having said all of this, I propose the following actions be taken:

  • DarkSuicune2000 and Sims2Player should refrain from commenting on each other's fanons, and they should not respond to each other's comments on any other fanon. Since this is where most of the disputes are stemming from, I suggest that they should cut it out entirely. This could be listed at TSW:ER, and I believe this restriction need not last any longer than one month.
    • This restriction also extends to commenting on fanon elsewhere, such as on chat or via a talk page.
    • The two users may continue to communicate with each other, providing that it is civil and well-mannered, on other topics.
  • Sims2Player should be reminded that, although criticism may sometimes feel like a slap in the face, it is not intended to disparage or to anger. They should be reminded about the true meaning of "nothing is perfect," in that things will always garner some form of criticism one way or another. Sims2Player should realize that 1) Criticism is a part of the learning process and that he/she should learn to accept it, 2) It is impossible to please everybody, and 3) Responding to criticism and treating it as an attack is an assumption of bad faith.
  • DarkSuicune2000 should be reminded that criticism is helpful, but it should be worded in an appropriate and civil manner. Things like "You have a good plot, but you write like a bloody twelve-year old" is not okay, but "I think your plot is solid, but there are a number of sentences that could be rewritten in prose; for instance, there are a number of sentence fragments..." is an example of good criticism.

To be clear, I am not proposing:

  • Blocking. Both of these users are not focusing all their energy and attention towards these comments, and are making constructive contributions elsewhere on the wiki. A block should only be used as an absolute last resort when all other methods have failed (And I have confidence in the two parties that a block will never be necessary).
  • User privilege removals. Again, these don't address the issue at hand and will do the opposite of a cool-down. Actions should be preventative, not punitive.

I would like other administrators to comment on this issue and provide feedback or ask questions. Feel free to suggest changes to these proposals.

--I am k6ka Talk to me! See what I have done 18:39, September 27, 2015 (UTC)

I strongly support the proposals you've laid out. Although both are quick to deny that a feud exists, I think the evidence here speaks for itself. An issue between two editors is one thing, but it's beginning to spill over and other users are getting involved, further spreading the conflict. It needs to stop now. -- LostInRiverview talkblogcontribs 15:17, September 28, 2015 (UTC)
Strong support - This has gone on for quite a while now, and to be quite honest, it's disrupting the peace, especially when their arguments happen on other user's fanons. This has to be handled quickly and quietly as we don't want others getting involved. However, if both users continue to argue back and forth, then I think we should take more of a firmer action upon them both. It just has to stop. ~ Beds (talk - blog) 17:50, September 28, 2015 (UTC)
Strong support for all of the reason previously stated. It is just about to the point where it is getting out of control. -- Icemandeaf (talk) 18:13, September 28, 2015 (UTC)
Strong support - Your proposal is level-headed and sensible to this matter. I believe it would be the best solution to handle it. Nikel Talk Vote! 14:12, September 29, 2015 (UTC)

Icon yes check v Done Editing Restrictions have been applied to both users, set to last for a month. At that time, we can re-evaluate their behavior and take additional actions or place the users on ER probation. -- LostInRiverview talkblogcontribs 02:34, September 30, 2015 (UTC)

Editing restriction breach

Recently the editing restrictions set above have been breached. DarkSuicune2000 left comments on three fanons by Sims2Player: Fanon:Flower City, Fanon:Michelle Styles, and Fanon:Sef Nkobe. While the comments are deemed constructive and civil, they are still a breach of editing restriction, which expires on 3:00 October 30, 2015. It is currently 18:56, October 10, 2015 (UTC).

Both users have been notified. Further sanctions may be discussed if the restrictions are breached again. --I am k6ka Talk to me! See what I have done 18:56, October 10, 2015 (UTC)

For administrative and logging purposes, the deleted comments are listed here:

--I am k6ka Talk to me! See what I have done 18:59, October 10, 2015 (UTC)

Editing restriction re-evaluation

The expiry time for the restrictions (03:00 30 October 2015) has come and gone. At this time, I'd like to invite other administrators that do not have a conflict of interest to evaluate this situation, and determine whether or not the restrictions need to be in place any longer. Also, if there were any breaches in the restrictions that were not spotted and not logged on this page, please bring it up. --I am k6ka Talk to me! See what I have done 12:51, October 31, 2015 (UTC)

I don't know of any breaches aside from the incident already noted above. I think at this point it would be best to place these users on probation. The restrictions placed on them should be lifted, but if they revert to their previous behavior, the ERs will be immediately re-implemented and they will be given warnings. Though, I should stress that in the case where one of the two parties violates the terms, only the person who has actually violated it should be warned. During the ER period, one of the two users breached the restriction, but both users received the same warning for that action, which is unfair to the second user who did not breach the restriction. It is important to remind both users that engaging in the kind of behavior they were engaging in is harmful, distracting and not permitted, whether or not they have been warned against doing so or have been restricted from doing so. -- LiR talkblogcontribs 15:36, October 31, 2015 (UTC)
Placing them on probation seems to be a fairly reasonable suggestion. I'm not saying that the behaviour of either of these users has been 100% since the restrictions were placed. However I've noticed that since the beginning of the editing restriction period, both parties have improved significantly. I agree that the restrictions should be lifted, and should either of them revert to their previous behaviour, the editing restriction should be immediately re-implemented on whichever party violated the terms. Indeed it seems unfair for both parties to receive a warning, if only one of them actually violated the terms. I know that in the past away from the keyboard, I have been warned for doing what the opposing player committed, and it is not a pleasant experience. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 08:49, November 1, 2015 (UTC)
To clarify, both users were warned because one of them had responded to a comment made by the other user, which was highlighted in the ER. So technically, both users were at fault, one for posting a comment on the other user's fanon, and the other for responding to said comment. --I am k6ka Talk to me! See what I have done 18:12, November 8, 2015 (UTC)
If one has received a warning for violating the restriction, then the one who violated should remain on the restriction while the other can be put on probation, granted that they haven't broken any restrictions. It's only fair. ~ Beds (talk - blog) 23:56, November 8, 2015 (UTC)
The restriction was violated once, but it appears to have been accidental, and no further breaches of the restriction, as far as I'm aware of, were made. Thus, I don't think an extended restriction is necessary, and both users can go on probation. If they do breach the restriction again, they can always be re-added as needed. --I am k6ka Talk to me! See what I have done 00:02, November 9, 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of Category:Created by TheSimSupply

I find the deletion of Category:Created by TheSimSupply to be a bit bitey. For one thing, the author wasn't even notified about the deletion nomination, and it was nominated for deletion through the regular process, not a speedy deletion. Beds later deleted the category immediately, labelling it "Nonsense", which is intended for pages that are "patent nonsense", something this page was definitely not. Finally, the author seemed to have created the category with the intention of categorizing their own fanon with it. The reverts done by Sims2Player and C.Syde65 seem to give the impression that we forbid fanon categories, which is not true considering that fanon templates are given category names that the author gets to pick and choose. (Say, for example, Category:Revolution templates.)

I would suggest that the community reconsiders its decision to have this de facto ban on fanon categories lifted. See Forum:Permitting user-created fanon categories. --I am k6ka Talk to me! See what I have done 11:34, October 13, 2015 (UTC)

I posted a response to the sister thread on the CDF, but I'll reply here as well for the sake of administrative housekeeping regarding this category. I would be in support of undeleting this category, assuming that Beds doesn't choose to undelete it by herself. However, since I do not want to override the decision of another administrator, I shall wait for consensus here rather than undeleting it myself. -- LostInRiverview (Plumbob Administrator)Contact me here • 14:35, October 13, 2015 (UTC)
I can easily delete the category, and I also plan to personally apologise to the user for causing all of this confusion that I caused them. I'll wait until k6 and other administrators are aware of the mistake before I take action. ~ Beds (talk - blog) 15:32, October 13, 2015 (UTC)
Since the category has been restored, I was wondering if it were wise to undo those edits [10] [11] made by Sims2Player and myself, that removed the said category from the user's fanons? I too do not wish to override any decisions made by others, which is why I've decided to ask here. Normally I'd consult this community guideline, but this is a difficult interpretation. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 09:56, October 24, 2015 (UTC)

Spamming comments on user's own fanon

Red x cross uncheck bad
Issue is no longer relevant
Old news. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 21:40, November 28, 2016 (UTC)

Recently I've noticed a user has been repeatedly leaving numerous spammy comments on their own fanon articles. In one case, this user left fourteen separate comments (although one of the comments was in reply to comments left by other users). Having so many comments pop up can tend to flood Recent Changes and Wiki Activity, and might be seen as an attempt to advertise for their fanon pages (by making sure their pages consistently appear on RC/WA). Is there anything we'd like to do about this? - LiR talkblogcontribs 05:04, November 24, 2015 (UTC)

They've also recently flooded the chat room while I was away from keyboard, and when I returned, I found that they'd spammed the chat with this. This is the very first time I've ever seen them in chat. When I discovered all the comments they'd spammed into the chat, I left them a warning (not a formal one) via private chat not to spam the chat room. And then they apologised, and said it was time for them to sleep, and they left.
Normally I interpret this user to be a fairly mature and respectable one, but I wouldn't say the same for what I've just seen of them in chat and what you've mentioned above. I personally think a friendly hand written message asking them not to leave spammy comments on their own fanon articles to draw attention to their work would suffice. And then if they continue in this pattern, I'd suggest giving them a handwritten warning. I don't think what they've done recently should be treated with a standardised warning message. Not in the mean time at least. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 05:48, November 24, 2015 (UTC)
Do not forget Hanlon's razor. Chances are, they simply lacked the maturity or didn't think it through properly without actually intending harm. I would suggest monitoring them for a few more days or weeks, and if they persist, then warn them with a hand-written warning. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 11:45, November 24, 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of Sapphire Moondust's fanon

Today an unregistered user, claiming to be User:Sapphire Moondust, nominated several of Sapphire Moondust's fanon pages for deletion. K6ka responded to the requests by taking down the deletion templates, stating that the unregistered user would need to contact the administrators and prove in some way that they are indeed Sapphire Moondust. The unregistered user contacted K6ka and requested that the content be deleted, and K6ka repeated that the user would need to prove their identity first. The user then responded negatively, and deleted the content from Sapphire Moondust's fanon pages. C.Syde65 has restored the content again.

I think the deletion of the fanon should be discussed here. I personally am in favor of deletion, but not because of the unregistered user's request. In this case, Sapphire Moondust is globally disabled. We in the past have not, to my knowledge, made a distinction between users that are globally disabled, globally blocked, or locally blocked. Since that is the case, I think we need to treat their fanon as if Sapphire Moondust was indefinitely blocked, and delete it on those grounds. In short, the identity of the unanimous user nominating the articles for deletion, is irrelevant to the question of deletion, in my opinion. -- LiR talkblogcontribs 22:13, January 19, 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. The user in question hasn't given any indication as to why they've been globally disabled, and they left the wiki in otherwise good standing. I don't see it as necessary to delete the fanons, considering we have plenty of "vanished" users that still have fanon on the wiki. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 22:18, January 19, 2016 (UTC)
Considering that Sapphire Moondust has left the wiki without explanation, other than that she left in a manner that suggested that she had no intention in returning, and didn't want other users to talk to her, I suspect that she scheduled her account for closure herself.
However I do not think that her fanons should be removed from the wiki, just because her account is globally disabled. I mean people still read her fanons, and we've had several featured fanons by users with globally disabled accounts. Also she never personally asked for her fanons to be removed before leaving this wiki. For those, and other reasons, I see no reason to support the deletion of her fanons. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 22:30, January 19, 2016 (UTC)
I don't think the reason behind the departure is really relevant. The fact is that the user is no longer here and, unless they can get their account re-activated, won't be coming back. Consider as well that Sapphire Moondust is the "owner" of that content, under our policies. Since Sapphire Moondust no longer has access to the Wiki (either through their own action or because of Wikia), they cannot control how that content is used. In a usual case, if an author requests deletion, we will usually oblige them, but since Sapphire Moondust is not able to log in, they cannot make that request and, indeed, don't have any control over their own content at all. That's the reason I'd support deletion... not because of the request itself, but because it removes the issue of the owner not having control, by eliminating the content entirely. -- LiR talkblogcontribs 22:31, January 19, 2016 (UTC)
I'd say "archive" is the key word here. The fanon doesn't have to be edited or expanded for people to read and enjoy them. There is no harm in keeping them and it can be retained to serve as inspiration for future authors. If the wiki lost all its administrators and active users, Wikia staff won't close this wiki solely because of that, instead leaving it open as an archive of, well, our old lives, even if nobody edits or maintains it anymore. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 22:59, January 19, 2016 (UTC)
I really do not see the point of keeping their fanons on the wiki if they have been globally disabled. What truly is the point? They are never going to be updated, and no one has any rights whatsoever to update them as they don't belong to any of us, the only person they belong to is Sapphire Moondust, who is not around to do anything about it. Simple rule; if the user's not around anymore, then their fanons should be deleted. ~ Beds (talk - blog) 23:16, January 19, 2016 (UTC)
If Sapphire Moondust's fanons should be deleted, should the fanon pages belonging to other fanon authors with globally disabled accounts be deleted as well? Like AsherÉire's for example? ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 23:18, January 19, 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict)There's a difference between archival of wiki content and archival of fanon. Wiki contributions are, by definition and by license, community-owned content. An edit I make to an article on the wiki belongs to the wiki; in fact, in editing, I agree to license that content to stand there (either in the article or in the page history) long after I am gone. That's something that is fundamental to building the wiki, or else anyone would feel free to pull any information they contributed when they leave. Fanon, on the other hand, has not been treated as community-owned content. We refer to fanon articles as "property," we have rules against other users editing a user's fanon content, and we allow users to request that their fanon is deleted. To my knowledge, we have never denied a user's request to delete their own fanon, because doing so would in essence force that user to keep content that they own on this wiki in perpetuity. If we are going to treat fanon as property, then this goes against the rights of the owner to manage their property according to their wishes.
I have no issue with keeping fanon content when a user leaves, provided that user still has access to their account and to the wiki; in other words, if the user still can exercise control over their content, regardless of whether or not they choose to do so, then I have no issues with keeping the content as an "archive." In this case, however, the user no longer has access, and has no control over what happens to the content that they own. It is unfair to deny them the ability to remove their own content if they so choose, because we allow other users to do so upon request. Therefore it seems to me that we should delete fanon content owned by users who are globally blocked and/or disabled as a matter of course, to prevent these people from having their works hosted outside of their control.
The decision of deleting or not deleting goes beyond this specific case. If we choose to keep that material, we are essentially saying that fanon authors don't have control over their content, but the content instead belongs to the community. Now I'm not arguing the point of whether fanon authors or the community should own the content, I'm merely saying that up until now, we've operated under the principle that fanon authors are the owners of their own works. Keeping this content now would go against that principle, and re-define the relationship between fanon authors, their works, and the wiki. -- LiR talkblogcontribs 23:25, January 19, 2016 (UTC)

Use of Facebook and Twitter profiles

I've mentioned in the past that any administrator will be given rights to post on The Sims Wiki's Facebook and Twitter pages if they want them, as a part of their promotion. Since these pages are administered separately from the wiki, it falls on active administrators to continue to pass along moderation rights to new admins as they are promoted. At this time, however, very few of the wiki's active administrators have these posting/moderating rights, and even fewer actually use them. Because the few admins who do have these rights are also inactive generally, it's even more important to make sure that we have active administrators taking over the posting on these pages. The pages have been incredibly silent over the past few months, partly because the people who are supposed to be updating them (like myself) have not been.

Where I'm going with all of this is, if you are an administrator and you have a Facebook account, please contact me on my talk page so I can get you set up as a moderator on The Sims Wiki's Facebook page. Additionally, even if you do not have a Twitter account, let me know via my talk page if you would be interested in receiving access to TSW's Twitter account (you don't have to have a first Twitter account to gain access to another account). Even if you've decided against taking these rights on in the past, please reconsider it. Finally, if you know of any non-administrators who are active on the wiki and are trustworthy, consider recommending them for social media rep positions.

The social networking pages are useful tools for driving readers to certain pages, or to the wiki in general, and are good for interacting with the greater Simming community. It makes very little sense to keep the pages idle for long periods of time. Ideally we should have several people using Facebook and Twitter, keeping posts up-to-date and interacting with users.

-- LiR talkblogcontribs 05:20, April 10, 2016 (UTC)


Icon yes check v
Issue is resolved
User was indeffed on November 5. Right now it's up to the blocked user to appeal the block themselves. Start a new thread if someone wants to continue the discussion. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 21:36, November 28, 2016 (UTC)

It seems like the situation with User:JordanBell445 is at risk of getting out-of-hand. The user has been blocked for repeated creation of fanon articles in the canon namespace, and the block has been escalated due to sock puppetry. I really want to avoid a situation where we end up indefinitely blocking another user. This is especially true in this case, since JordanBell has not been acting in bad faith.

I feel that we should continue to block any sock puppet accounts that pop up and keep the current block in-place with the option to appeal the block through the normal procedure, since the block is longer than a week. I think we should agree on a course of action if new sock puppets pop up, rather than reacting by escalating blocks further. -- LiR talkblogcontribs 23:44, July 29, 2016 (UTC)

I think the main reason JordanBell may have created the J.sharp3 account was because they didn't realise that their original account's block had expired. But the fact is that they should have checked to see that their first account was unblocked before using those sock-puppet accounts. I agree that the situation with JordanBell is at risk of getting out of hand, but then I do feel - and I'm sure I'm not alone when I feel this way - that if blocks don't discourage them from creating sock-puppets, what will?
I blocked the J.sharp3 account indefinitely because they were almost certainly a sock-puppet of JordanBell, but then I changed the block settings after thinking it through and deciding that enabling the auto-block, and disabling talk page access came across as too harsh. Especially given that I hadn't requested a check user to see if these accounts really were operated by the same person. A little while later, when I was on the community central chat, Upstagekinkjou came and asked me why I blocked their IP.
I asked them if they were the same user that made the JordanBell and J.sharp3 accounts, because they claimed to be Jacob Sharp who JordanBell is also known as, as evidenced by their masthead, and they admitted that they were the same user. I then asked them if they would log into their JordanBell account, so that I could verify that they were the same user, and they did just that. Again, I feel that the way JordanBell has been treated may come across as being a bit harsh, and that they may truly have lacked sufficient experience to follow our policies through. But then at the same time, it's a difficult interpretation whether they really are incapable of following our policies or if they're just refusing to listen.
I was able to get them to confess whether or not they were the same person who created all these accounts, and they admitted that they were. So they don't seem to be remotely unable to follow through with what we ask of them. I think the best option would be to keep their original account blocked for the time being, and indefinitely block any subsequent sock-puppet accounts that they create, but without lengthening the block placed upon their original account any further. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 00:16, July 30, 2016 (UTC)
I think it'd be useful to explain to JordanBell what the policy is on multiple accounts, how he/she broke it, and why it matters in the first place, while still standing strong in keeping JordanBell's block for fanon creation (which I don't think is at issue here). If the multiple accounts policy is clearly explained and JordanBell continues to choose to violate it, then and only then would it be prudent to extend the block on the main account. Up to now we've been enforcing the multiple account policy but, aside from a brief explanation of the policy violation in the notice that C.Syde gave to JordenBell when the block was extended, there has been no real explanation of the situation. In this user's case, I think it's important that we assume good faith, but at the same time assume ignorance towards our rules. If we assume that, then it means we need to be clear about what our rules are and how they're enforced. Ultimately I feel this is the best way to prevent the situation from escalating, or at least making sure that if the situation does escalate, it will be by JordanBell's own explicit actions in violation of a policy that we have made understandable enough for him/her. -- LiR talkblogcontribs 00:52, July 30, 2016 (UTC)
It should be noted that the user was given several notices on their talk page about their creation of fanon in the canon namespace, and the user has apparently ignored every single one of them, hence why I took to blocking. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 20:29, August 1, 2016 (UTC)
I probably would have taken to blocking myself, but then I've never actually blocked a user for repeatedly creating fanon inside the canon namespace before, and before they were actually blocked for doing so, I was unsure whether blocking them for repeatedly adding fanon to the canon namespace would be something that others would consider fair. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 06:02, August 2, 2016 (UTC)
Blocks are meant to prevent further disruption, not to punish users. The user was being disruptive (intentionally or unintentionally) by creating fanon in the wrong namespace.
And as for block evasion, they've created yet another sockpuppet account, and so far all attempts to contact the user have failed. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 13:15, August 4, 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I personally don't see blocks as a punishment, but to prevent further disruption, and as a consequence for the said user's actions. When this said user created their latest sock-puppet account, the first thing they did was enter chat, and tried to contact me via PM, but they only got as far as saying "Hey" before I banned them.
I understood that they probably only wanted to discuss their block with me, but I felt that their block evading was more important than their wanting to contact me. Their original account still have access to their talk page, but they haven't shown any signs that they are aware of this. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 01:32, August 5, 2016 (UTC)

Lucky98 block

Icon yes check v
Issue is resolved
This thread's closure is long overdue. User was indeffed on September 30. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 21:34, November 28, 2016 (UTC)

I feel that the indefinite block against Lucky98 (talk · contribs · editcount · block · modify rights · logs · block log) is too strict. The user's first block was for 31 hours, and the second block escalated all the way to an indefinite block. I feel that an indefinite block in this case is not justified, and a much shorter duration (like a 1-week block) is more in order for this situation. -- LiR talk · blog · contribs 13:52, August 26, 2016 (UTC)

They've been here for over a month, and it is also worth noting that they have also been posting their content on other wikis, including some that I am admin on and several that they have founded. They have also vandalized a number of our pages, such as [12] and [13]. I do not expect to see any further constructive edits from this account, especially considering that they already have their own wikis where their content is more suitable being uploaded there, which is why I indeffed them with a preventative measure in mind. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 14:53, August 26, 2016 (UTC)
This user's brand of vandalism is relatively low-key and low-impact. Even if they do vandalize, they cause very little harm and are almost immediately rolled back. I think issuing a block as a preventative measure eliminates the opportunity for substantive change from this individual. And it shouldn't fall to us to block a user based on conduct on other wikis unless that conduct directly affects this wiki. -- LiR talk · blog · contribs 15:17, August 26, 2016 (UTC)
You can reduce the length of the block accordingly, although I still stand by what I say. This comes from my experience working on the English Wikipedia where even low-key vandals, if they persist, are eligible to be blocked indefinitely if they don't have any constructive edits. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 15:35, August 26, 2016 (UTC)
It seems that the practice to which you refer applies to people who only vandalize, without making or attempting to make any other contributions of positive merit. This in essence implies that the user is not acting in good faith and therefore should be indefinitely blocked since they show absolutely no intent to act in good faith. Lucky98 has apparently acted in bad faith in certain cases, but they have also made other edits that could be interpreted as detrimental yet still assumed to be in good faith. Any such edit would not fall under the definition of vandalism, and hence the account wouldn't be subject to being treated as a "Vandalism-only account".
I don't personally have high hopes for this user (though I'd be open to being proven wrong), but I still feel that we ought to assume good faith wherever we can and not be punitive with our blocks. If this user returns to bad faith editing after the end of a temporary block, we should consider further escalation. -- LiR talk · blog · contribs 16:21, August 26, 2016 (UTC)
I must admit that I was a little surprised when I discovered that they'd been blocked indefinitely, even if they had vandalised other wikis, since they'd only been blocked one other time, in which the first block they received lasted less than 2 days. I don't have very high hopes for this user either, since they have made some low-key vandalism, as well as creating nonsense fanon articles. Fanon articles that I would have perceived as spam, had I not assumed good faith, and tagged their fanon pages as stubs, whilst giving them time to add proper content in their fanon pages in the near future.
Not all their edits seem to have been remotely done in bad faith, although they don't seem to have made any edits that I wouldn't perceive as questionable. At the present time, I feel that an indefinite block in this case was too harsh, but I am open to being convinced that an indefinite block in this situation was truly justifiable. I think they should be given a clear handwritten explanation as to what they are doing wrong and how to fix it. And if they don't improve when their block has expired, I wouldn't be opposed to them receiving an indefinite block then. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 06:18, August 27, 2016 (UTC)

The time has come to revive this discussion as the user has now been blocked yet again, this time for two weeks, and again for vandalizing pages.

At this point I am tempted to block them indefinitely as a vandalism only account, as such a user on Wikipedia would've been blocked in this fashion by now. So far I do not see any attempts by the user to edit constructively. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 16:48, September 11, 2016 (UTC)

As I mentioned before in my previous comment, I would be open to the idea of giving them a clear handwritten explanation as to what they are doing wrong and how to fix it. But somehow, given that they were issued a formal warning recently, and then showed no signs of improvement, hence why they have been blocked yet again, I don't really see how giving them a clear handwritten explanation would help convince them to stop making nonconstructive edits and start editing constructively. Therefore, I do feel that it might be justified to give them an indefinite block after this block has expired, if they haven't shown any signs of improvement when that time comes. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 21:15, September 11, 2016 (UTC)

Obtaining Vanguard support for portability reforms on the wiki

I would like to contact Vanguard and obtain their help (hopefully hands-on help) in updating our templates, css coding, and other design and layout elements on the wiki, in order to ensure that our wiki is portable to different devices. Right now I feel we are largely failing in this regard, for a multitude of different reasons.

None of us can claim to be experts in css or in the function of our most complex templates (especially infobox templates). As none of us are experts, everything that we've assembled has been borrowed from other sources or added purely through guess-and-check methods This means that our code is probably poorly optimized and inefficient. We're also prevented from making any large-scale changes to these systems because we don't have a full understanding of how they function. The idea is, by building new portable templates and designs from the ground-up, we will have a more streamlined code that is more easily understood by current and future editors/administrators, and able to be adapted and edited more in the future without a fear that we could be breaking functionality.

There hasn't been a huge push on this wiki yet to pursue portability. I think this lack of effort has been to our detriment. By making it harder for people on different devices to read our content, we make TSW less of a destination for the information we provide. Fewer people coming here to seek out information in turn reduces the number of readers who choose to become editors, and thus we also get decreased community interaction and engagement. If we can rebuild the wiki into one that is portable and readable across platforms, we could draw in new readers who could in turn become new editors.

So, I'm proposing that we contact the Vanguard team and see how to move forward with portability. I want to stress that their goal is to design or redesign features on the wiki without impacting function or design for desktop/laptop users. All of us edit TSW from traditional devices and I don't think any of us want to see design or functionality compromised in order to benefit mobile devices. But if there's a way to improve the reading experience for mobile users without a major impact on desktop readers, or if there's even a way to improve experiences across-the-board, then why not do so? Vanguard members are not allowed to implement changes unilaterally, so we don't have to worry about them forcing through unwanted designs without our approval. They can, however, be a source of new ideas and expertise, and allow us to make some changes to our layout and design that have been needed for some time.

If this idea is received well here, I will send in a request for a member of Vanguard to engage the community and get the ball rolling on making substantive changes. -- LiR talk · blog · contribs 18:05, November 27, 2016 (UTC)

I have had one member of the Van-Guard team replace my print screen of the old Wikia the Home of Fandom logo with a higher resolution one on my wiki - my one was more blurry when shrunk, but then that doesn't really count as a potential unwanted change, since it would have been pretty obvious that I wouldn't have had a problem with it.
Although I do consider myself to be a pro at CSS in terms of recolouring skins etc, I admit that a lot of the CSS I have used for templates in the past was borrowed from other sources, and I admittedly owe a lot of my CSS experience to the inspect element option, on top of owing some experience to another user who's experience helped my own experience in CSS to increase.
But enough risks of going partially off topic here. I think that this proposal is a good idea since we do really need to have designs or functionality compromised in order to benefit mobile devices. I for one don't care much for mobile devices since I don't use them, but a lot of users that I've heard of do use them. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 07:55, November 28, 2016 (UTC)
You know what, why don't we give this a shot? I think it's time we got some real pros to fix up our pages. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 04:17, November 30, 2016 (UTC)
I agree that this would be a great way to increase accessibility and versatility. ~ Waikikamukow (Talk) 04:23, December 1, 2016 (UTC)

Takenaka Emika's block

I noticed that Takenaka Emika (talk · contribs · editcount · block · modify rights · logs · block log) was recently blocked for inserting false information. While I'm not opposed to the block, I do find it quite bothersome to see that this user was not even warned beforehand.

I would like to remind all administrators that, except for very obvious and for very serious cases, all users should be warned at least once before a block is applied, especially for first offenses. You can either use the Warning template or use one of the newer ones here. Jumping straight to a block can be seen by many users as being too rash and impulsive, which are two adjectives that should not be used to describe our administrative team, and definitely not any of our users. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 03:05, December 10, 2016 (UTC)

I was about to issue a warning to Takenaka Emika when I noticed that they'd redone an edit which had been undone shortly before. Between that, and the user's record of vandalism and lack of good-faith edits (except for a single brief fanon comment), I went straight to a 1-day block. Dharden (talk) 03:49, December 10, 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I noticed that too and it took me by surprise as well. When I discovered that Dharden had been informed about the user and their actions, I did consider leaving a warning on that user's talk page, but before I was able to do that, the user had already been blocked.
I can't deny the fact that I had taken some actions a few months ago that may have been seen as rather rash and impulsive, but then I was facing problems caused by that user's disobedient and obscure attempts on other wikis to aggravate me on purpose, and I had already asked them not to necro-bump an ancient message that I'd left two years previously, but they ignored me and kept trying to bump the message, and I just couldn't let them aggravate me further.
Blocking them was one of the toughest choices that I can remember making, but it seemed to be the only suitable option for me at the time. I could have locked the user talk page for a few hours, but doing so would have contradicted guidelines of this page, and I just couldn't bring myself to counter them. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 04:00, December 10, 2016 (UTC)
This is not good. Administrators should not be acting on impulse and they should definitely not issue a block or take administrative action when pissed off or as retaliation. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 13:41, December 10, 2016 (UTC)
I don't think that Dharden was acting impulsively or emotionally in this case. Perhaps the block was premature or incorrect, but not terribly so. I agree in principle that we should warn first, block last, but every situation is unique and must be evaluated individually. LiR talk · blog · contribs 14:30, December 10, 2016 (UTC)
I agree with that. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 19:09, December 10, 2016 (UTC)

Blocking users after warnings

Two users were blocked indefinitely after receiving warnings for behavior on the wiki. The issue is, the users were blocked after the warnings were issued, but before those users did anything further to warrant receiving a block. In my opinion, the blocks in those cases were unacceptable and I have reversed them.

The purpose of warnings are to allow users to correct their behavior. If we go ahead and block—especially indefinitely block—users before they're able to demonstrate that they've learned from their behavior and changed, then we totally defeat the purpose of even issuing warnings in the first place. Blocking immediately after a warning also fails to assume good faith on the part of those editors we've warned.

If you have an issue with my decision to unblock those users, please address it here. -- LiR talk · blog · contribs 00:56, December 18, 2016 (UTC)

I concur wholeheartedly. Please read the warning messages; they were not written for fun. It does not make sense for a user to be told that they will be blocked if their behaviour continues, and then be blocked when they did not continue said behaviour. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 00:58, December 18, 2016 (UTC)
As a whole, I wouldn't say that I have an issue with your decision to reverse the blocks. But the reason they were indefinitely blocked is because they were both in direct violation of Wikia's terms of use by uploading pornographic images. Several users have been indefinitely blocked in the past without warning for this kind of behaviour. I guess in this situation, we need a better way to determine what should happen to users who upload pornographic images, whether they should be given a chance to redeem themselves, or whether they should be blocked on the spot. Uploading pornographic images is completely unacceptable and is not something that should be taken lightly. It is a clear demonstration of bad faith. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 01:15, December 18, 2016 (UTC)
Those are fair points regarding the reasons for blocking. However, in these specific cases, administrators (myself included) chose to forego an immediate block in exchange for a stern warning, only to have those warnings overridden hours later without the warned users doing anything additionally to violate policy. I feel it should remain an administrator's prerogative whether to issue a warning or a block for a policy violation, rather than a blanket rule. In these cases, the users were given final warnings, so any additional pornographic uploads would have been met by blocks and any porn would've been immediately deleted. Even clear demonstrations of bad faith should not be met by immediate blocks in all but the worst cases, and then should almost never result in indefinite blocks until all other courses of action are exhausted. So, I agree with your justification for blocking, but feel you should have respected the warnings already in place and left well enough alone. -- LiR talk · blog · contribs 01:33, December 18, 2016 (UTC)
Okay. Well, I still disagree that users should be given another chance after committing such actions, but I'll be more careful to avoid overriding already issued warnings given to users that have done those sorts of actions. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 01:44, December 18, 2016 (UTC)
I think users should be given one final chance even after committing such offenses, if only because the "Zero Tolerance" policy is a policy that has failed to deter crime when put into practice; such a policy, in practice, only increased the number of incarcerations with little to no reduction in crime. It is absolutely possible for even a very bad vandal to eventually become a productive editor, and while most vandals won't take on such an opportunity, we may not want to slam all the doors shut immediately. In other words, {{Uw-vandalism4im}} (and templates of the like) were created for a reason; they're meant to be used in these circumstances, and they're already pretty serious by themselves. If an editor stops editing when they receive an only warning, then the problem is solved right there -- no block necessary. If an editor continues, then we can block, and problem solved again. A warning is a good practice for administrators, and it helps to give the impression that we are more rational and civilized, as many wikis and websites out there will block or ban you on a first offense, without warning (I've been on the receiving end of such communities before). True professionalism, or at least good etiquette, should involve a notification before any drastic action is taken. Your electric company warns you about an overdue payment before cutting the power, right? —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 02:14, December 18, 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. Additionally it's important that if we are forced to "slam the door" in response to repeated policy violations, that we not "lock the door" as well. That is, long-term and indefinite-term blocks should be used only in the most extreme circumstances to prevent ongoing disruption and abuse that isn't quelled by other means, specifically a series of warnings, edit restrictions and/or escalating blocks. Just as it is often inappropriate to skip past warnings, it is almost always inappropriate to jump immediately to a permanent or essentially-permanent block. Any such block should be discussed by the administrative team before it's issued.
I must underline that we need to assume good faith wherever we can. A statement like "I still disagree that users should be given another chance" fails to give the benefit of the doubt. The statement is also very bite-y. And, perhaps most egregiously, it undermines any attempt to reform problem users by passing judgment and assigning guilt permanently, slamming the door permanently on any chance for them to become positive members of the community and removing any incentive for them to try and operate within our rules. -- LiR talk · blog · contribs 03:57, December 18, 2016 (UTC)
Indeed, I would expect a warning from an electric company about an overdue payment, before cutting the power. But pornography has almost always been dealt with pretty seriously, from what I can remember.
Okay, well I'm willing to reconsider my approach to this situation, after what has been stated above, even though I'm currently unsure whether I'm fully supportive or fully opposed to either perspective, at least on the inside. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 05:17, December 18, 2016 (UTC)


Thesims2pets (talk · contribs · editcount · block · modify rights · logs · block log)

This user first joined our wiki, apparently having communicated with PhanAndDil on Wikia chat; no logs exist of this conversation, but it would appear that Thesims2pets was slightly critical of PhanAndDil leaving the chatroom. They then proceeded to mass-tag random fanon pages for speedy deletion without providing a reason. All nominations were declined and reverted. Icemandeaf quickly blocked them for 72 hours.

After their first block expired, they created Lola Duff, which appears to be a valid subject, and thus worthy of an article on the wiki. However, the article they created was of substantially poor quality, and after their creation they appeared to have "vandalized" their own article, such as [14] and [15].

On December 18, I banned them from Wikia chat after taking note (and logging) an altercation between them and PhanAndDil. Both users were noticeably bitter, with both of them telling each other to "Shut up". The incident seemed to have died down almost immediately when I joined the chat room. After some time, PhanAndDil, and later I, left. Auror Andrachome remained in chat when Thesims2pets made a number of messages. I had asked Auror to prepare a log of chat events for me, and I quickly rejoined chat to verify some of the more recent messages. Thesims2pets had inserted profanity and an inappropriate emoji into chat. Given the recent history in chat, I decided to ban the user from chat. Not too soon afterwards, they began complaining about their ban.

Today they created How to have a 7 member family on the sims 2 pets for ps2, which I moved to Game guide:How to have a 7 member family on the sims 2 pets for ps2, since it was not appropriate for the mainspace. They later moved it to Fanon:How to have a 7 member family on the sims 2 pets for ps2. C.Syde65 later blocked them for continued disruption, and as the article they recently created and moved was of extremely poor quality, I deleted it.

After their block, a user who went by the nickname "Joshua" joined our ChatLounge channel and told people to "Go to hell". He was also seen disrupting other channels on the ChatLounge network. Their behaviour closely resembled the one seen on Wikia chat, and I am quite certain that the two users are the same. MrBenC, being the owner and an oper on the network, has since dealt with the user appropriately. The user did not join the freenode channel.

This user has received numerous warnings, and currently they are on their second block, excluding the block they received on Community Central. At this point, I would agree that an indefinite block is warranted if their behaviour continues after their current block expires. I would like some additional opinions on this, but I believe this is the best course of action, given this (brief) history. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 04:53, December 19, 2016 (UTC)

EDIT 21/12/2016 Perhaps it would also be worth noting that the user had tripped several abuse filters, as seen here.

I wouldn't be opposed to them receiving an indefinite block if their behaviour continues after their current block expires, although I do feel that should that be the case, then the user should be informed that they'll receive an indefinite block if their behaviour continues. That way they won't be able to complain saying that it never occurred to them that their next block would be indefinite. That's just how I see it personally, but yeah, I do feel that an indefinite block would be the best course of action, given their history. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 05:10, December 19, 2016 (UTC)
I concur with k6ka and C.Syde65. If, after their block expires, they continue to exhibit the same behavior, I feel an indefinite block (with appeal available) is fair. -- LiR talk · blog · contribs 05:42, December 19, 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, if their behaviour continues after the block, and they receive an indefinite block then, I definitely would be opposed to the idea of them receiving an indefinite block without talk page access, especially without them receiving a warning that they'd be indefinitely blocked the next time they did something that was blatantly nonconstructive. But then I always make sure the user has talk page access when issuing an indefinite block anyway, unless the said user was a sock-puppet, or they'd done something seriously inappropriate which is what caused me to mess up two days ago. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 21:36, December 19, 2016 (UTC)

I would like to note that the user has created a sockpuppet account, Pets1 (talk · contribs · editcount · block · modify rights · logs · block log). Their edits involve asking about their block (A dead giveaway), having the same profile picture, and even revealing their name, matching the one seen and used on IRC. I have blocked the sock indefinitely, and have reset the block on the main account. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 19:50, December 20, 2016 (UTC)

I would have to agree with you there. And I see a couple of accounts that have been created like this. – Icemandeaf (talk) 20:08, December 20, 2016 (UTC)
I would have to agree as well. I think that it is certainly fair that the block issued on their first account is reset, since they've created a sock-puppet account to try and get around their block. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 20:57, December 20, 2016 (UTC)

The user has now created a second sockpuppet account, cleverly named Pets2, which I've indef blocked. I now would support and recommend an indefinite block on the main account, with a restoration of talk page access on the primary account in a week or two once we're sure that he's stopped creating new socks. -- LiR talk · blog · contribs 23:21, December 22, 2016 (UTC)

Support indefinite block, although I'm willing to restore talk page access on the main account as it would seem that the user wants a chance to repeal their block. If they abuse this, it can be revoked again immediately. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 23:30, December 22, 2016 (UTC)
I'll be honest that I'm not giving full support towards the recommendation of an indefinite block on the main account, but considering that they are using sock-puppets to get around their block, I guess I can give moderate support, since it doesn't seem like they're going to cooperate with any other option, in-fact I'm a tad unconvinced that placing an indefinite block on their main account will take away their temptation to create more sock-puppets to get around their block. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 23:34, December 22, 2016 (UTC)

I have blocked another sockpuppet, titled Simlover3 (talk · contribs · editcount · block · modify rights · logs · block log). I have also blocked an IP address that is linked to the sockmaster. At this point, the user is essentially indefinitely blocked, and I take back my previous point about restoring conditional talk page access. The user clearly shows no interest in cooperating with us whatsoever. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 03:25, December 24, 2016 (UTC)

I had a feeling this would happen. I can safely say that I retract any support that I might have had at letting them keep their talk page access in-case they were able to convince us that their block was no longer relevant. They clearly don't seem to have any purpose here, other than messing around and ignoring our guidelines for the sake of seeking attention. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 03:33, December 24, 2016 (UTC)
Opjunk (talk · contribs · editcount · block · modify rights · logs · block log) and Yaguj (talk · contribs · editcount · block · modify rights · logs · block log) have also been blocked as socks. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 01:04, January 1, 2017 (UTC)
Just goes to show you how my activity has dropped significantly over these last few months. Didn't even see them. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 01:10, January 1, 2017 (UTC)
Yuyuyuyuyuy (talk · contribs · editcount · block · modify rights · logs · block log) Blocked as another sock. Notably they also vandalized the Answers Wiki. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 03:26, January 2, 2017 (UTC)

Blocked The simmer 1000 (talk · contribs · editcount · block · modify rights · logs · block log) as a sock. Please contact me privately over IRC for a more thorough explanation. Thanks, —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 18:28, April 11, 2017 (UTC)

Blocked The gamer 1000000 (talk · contribs · editcount · block · modify rights · logs · block log) as a sock. Again, please contact me privately for a more thorough explanation. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 00:54, May 1, 2017 (UTC)

Administrator participation

2016 was a pretty bad year for The Sims Wiki. We've seen community engagement drop to new lows, community features fail to draw in even modest participation, and stalemates on important community discussions. Our readership has dwindled, our editor base has eroded, and several previously-active administrators have left us or have significantly decreased their participation in the community. 2016 is the first year since 2007 where not a single new administrator was promoted; in fact, no users whatsoever even applied for administrative rights for the entire year, and only one user applied for and received rollback rights. 2016 saw an administrative team barely functioning as a team; we have no cohesion, no coherent message, no shared mission, and no real clear goals for what we want to accomplish on the wiki. I feel that the outcome of 2016 can be blamed on many things, but the faults I've pointed out among the administrators, myself included, are in my opinion a major contributor to these ongoing problems.

If we want 2017 to be any better than 2016, something needs to change in the community. And, for better or worse, as the administrators of the wiki, we are essentially the leaders of the community. In many cases, we're really the only active community that's even still editing here. That means that we need to do a better job of taking up the mantle of leadership and engagement. We can't expect other editors to care about our community discussions, established processes, user promotions, or improving the wiki on any significant scale, if we don't demonstrate that we care ourselves.

What I would like to see is increased participation across the board from administrators in the coming year. On top of that, I'd love to see more interaction between the admins via the Admin Portal talk page. This page ought to be more useful than just a place to discuss the issuance of indefinite blocks. This should be a place where we can collectively determine how to lead the wiki and come up with a common mission and set of goals that guides us all in our actions on the wiki.

We may not personally agree on every detail of every idea, but I feel we can come up with a very sensible way forward on many issues. Take for example the push I've been trying to make towards making the wiki mobile-friendly. I have sadly received pretty lukewarm support in this area, and as a result when I try to work with members of the Vanguard team to bring forward the necessary changes, I can't speak with confidence that my fellow administrators will even support what I ultimately bring forward. Again, I don't think we need to be in lockstep agreement on every point, but we should at least agree on broad principles - we ought to have pages and templates that are usable by as many readers as possible, and we need to do a better job of reaching out to mobile readers that make up an increasing share of our overall readership. If we can agree on these broad ideas and all of us steadfastly and passionately dedicate ourselves to pursuing them, then the other minor details will resolve themselves with time.

When I come onto the wiki, I feel discouraged and disheartened. I have to believe that you all feel a similar way. I feel like there's nothing I can do to fix the significant issues I see, because I can't rally a non-existent and non-engaged community around something that requires community consensus. I feel like baby steps are all that will have a hope of succeeding because I can't push the bubble too much, and that baby steps aren't sufficient to solve many of our problems. I feel that you, the other administrators, are helpful generally, but that we do not communicate as well or as often as we should, or about as many things as we should, and that this lack of communication and coordination weakens us all. I deeply want this to change. I want to come onto the wiki and feel inspired to act boldly, to make big changes and to work with other people who share the same passion and energy, even if we don't agree on everything we want to do. If you feel the way I do, and you want this too, then I encourage you to lend your voice to this discussion.

The administrators lead this wiki, for better or worse. If we can come together and lead together, then I believe that we can finally start to solve so many of the problems that have been plaguing us for so long. This is not an impossible task, but it is impossible if we try to do it alone. One person did not write this wiki alone, and individual administrators cannot lead it alone. We need to talk to each other, and we need to start right now.

As a result, I've started this section. My hope is that we can open conversations between administrators about diverse and difficult issues. I want this page to be useful for philosophical discussion, nuanced policy debate, reason, inspiration, and compromise. Mostly, I just don't want to feel like I'm talking to an empty room. I need you to engage with me as well, and I need to engage with you. We need to engage with each other if any of this is ever going to work.

So, let's talk. Let's talk about a pet project of yours that you want someone to look at or help you with. Let's talk about a policy you're thinking of writing, and the direction you want to go. Let's talk about your ideas on how to improve our templates, or our articles, or our categories, or our fanon. Let's talk about the million and one different big and small ways we can work together better. Let's talk.-- LiR talk · blog · contribs 04:58, January 5, 2017 (UTC)

I found the changes that I had experienced here in 2016 to be rather surprising and quite disappointing, especially after the triumphs of December 2013 (when I first joined), and 2014 and 2015. The Sim's Pen was the first example I can remember of the introduction to what has become a less active and dysfunctional community as a whole. I can remember in the last issue of the Sim's Pen that I ever wrote that I had added a notice to encourage users to volunteer to write future editions, since it was like four weeks but only two issues were published. But to this very day, my last issue of the Sim's Pen turned out to be the penultimate issue on the Sims wiki.
By that time I had also noticed that the community in general was becoming less and less socially interactive, at least on the surface. I remember trying to find ways to get people to participate in battles without shopping for participants. These attempts were not very successful, if they were successful at all. Sometime during 2016 I learned that several of the users on the Sims wiki - I'm talking about non-admins here, not admins - that I was socially connected with had decided to become less active here, not because their personal lives were getting in the way - or at least if that was a reason, it wasn't the main reason - but because they'd become discouraged from collaborating here, because they said they felt that the admins here, or the bureaucrats at least thought that they were holy, like they thought they were better than everyone else.
I do not believe that their interpretations are correct, but I can definitely see why they would interpret that. I think I can also recall a couple of users becoming discouraged from the wiki because they think the admins blame everyone else for their problems when as far as those users were considered, the admins were the cause. And from what I've heard from those users, the open criticism towards the Sims 4 didn't do much to encourage them to remain active here either. For months I have wanted to try and solve the problem to whatever it is that has made the community go from being what it was in 2013-5 to what it is now. I am an admin, and I like to be socially interactive, but I've always considered myself to be stronger as an editor than as a community leader. I do have some leadership skills somewhere, but I've always considered editing to be my strong points. So while I am willing to help try and get all this to work out, I can't deny that I can't do it on my own, and I'm sure others can say the same for themselves. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 21:55, January 5, 2017 (UTC)
I won't commit to writing The Sims Pen myself, since I've never been big into the fanon namespace, but there's nothing stopping you or someone else from bringing it back if you want to. I'd suggest, if you do think it's worth bringing back, only bringing it back on a non-regular basis. I think a big thing that killed the Weekly News and TSP was the requirement that it be written every week regardless of whether there was someone who wanted to write it or whether there was anything worth writing about. The blogs should be works of passion, not something that becomes a chore, in my opinion. You can definitely tell when someone is writing a news post just out of necessity; it's pretty clear when someone is phoning it in, and that likely would translate to fewer people reading future blog posts.
Your point about the perceived attitude of admins/crats bothers me, because it's hard for me to see if that is true but at the same time it's easy to see how a user could see it that way. I don't want to say whether these users were right or wrong, but I think the mere fact that they have that perception is in itself a problem that needs to be fixed. The solution, in my opinion, shouldn't be any attempt to directly persuade them that they're wrong - that approach would be way too heavy-handed and would likely reinforce the idea that the admins feel superior and feel that the non-admin users are incorrect. Maybe we're not doing a good job of explaining the actions we take? Or, maybe we are making decisions that ought to be put up to greater community discussion? I'd definitely be interested in learning why this perception exists. You say you can see why they feel that way - can you elaborate on why that might be?
I think it's important to remember that leadership doesn't equal dictatorship. You don't have to be in an elected or appointed position to be a "leader." Likewise, we cannot demand that users on TSW be admins before they're considered leaders and taken seriously. Being engaged with others, taking the initiative when needed, and being helpful to others are aspects of leadership that I've seen you possess, so I think it's unfair to say that you've not been a community leader.
There's nothing wrong in admitting that we can't do it all alone. I've been feeling so frustrated for so long because I've felt like there's so much to do and it's all falling on my shoulders because no one else has been bothered to help. I think one of my big failings is that I need to learn to ask for help, and I need to be open to the advise and assistance that others give me. I also need to be more engaged with others, and provide the support that others need. I want us to work together as a cohesive administrative team, because I feel that will help us build a community. So, is there anything I can work with you on? And, would you be willing to help me out too? -- LiR talk · blog · contribs 03:08, January 8, 2017 (UTC)
I was shown a couple of messages back in April of last year which could be one explanation of 2016 not fairing as well as it could otherwise have done, although I'm not sure exactly how much it counts for since it was never confirmed whether the said IP user was the user they claimed to be. Before I was shown those messages, I wasn't convinced that they were the same user, even though they were from the same area as evidenced by their IP address, but after seeing those messages, it seems possible that they were indeed the same user, though without check user access, which is out of the question, it can't be certain whether or not the two users were the same. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 04:20, January 9, 2017 (UTC)
Being engaged with others, taking the initiative when needed, and being helpful to others are aspects of leadership that I've seen you possess, so I think it's unfair to say that you've not been a community leader. Well you're definitely right about that, and I guess I can't argue with that. After all, I do remember being perceived as a leader on several occasions, several of which were long before I became an admin. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 09:24, January 9, 2017 (UTC)
Administrators lead by example, not by barking out orders. I recently passed RFA on the English Wikipedia and I can tell you that I have no extra power over other users, yet people still tend to look at me as a leader (Despite the whole thing about adminship being "No Big Deal"; it's no big deal and a big deal at the same time). It's important to note that leaders are different from "bosses". Bosses are depicted as stereotypical men with a big belly and a bad temper wearing a suit and a tie and yelling out words that are larger than themselves, while leaders are seen as those who get on the ground and work with everyone else rather than on top of them.
And as an important note to all administrators who are reading this: participation is still entirely voluntary and no one is obliged to "work" for The Sims Wiki. Administrators are never required to use their tools under any circumstances. And that's another thing: good leaders lead because they choose to lead, not because they have to lead (And I know Socrates would disagree with me on this one). —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 04:09, January 10, 2017 (UTC)
Indeed. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 04:11, January 10, 2017 (UTC)

2016 was a bad year in general, I think most people around the world can agree. Too many people dying, both famous and unknown; too much war and conflict and disunity going on; too many llamas of the drama (Dramas of the llama?) getting involved in politics, etc. A lot of the websites I frequent have certainly felt the effects of 2016.

It was a rough year for me personally as well. Sure, there were many bright moments, but also a lot of darker ones. My studies have frequently gotten in the way of things, so I've had to temporarily give up a number of hobbies I like doing (Which I'm kicking myself for; hopefully next semester I'll be able to push back and reclaim some of my passions and regain some of my sanity). I haven't had nearly as much time to spend on-wiki as I'd like to, so my participation has dwindled. I seem to be spending more time on IRC in general (so not just our IRC channel) and it's quite a time waster, though I haven't been able to get much done productively most of the time that way.

So, new year. Let's keep 2016 in our minds but not in the foreground; remember the past but don't let it garner pessimism. I was thinking about finalizing Forum:Bot policy, which has been open for far too long now. Drafting it into a real policy page and getting it out of the way is something we want to get done this year, not wait until 2018. Forum:RFA reform is also something I'd like to get out of the way; organizing our user permissions information and request pages is good. Plus, and this has been mentioned somewhere, our policy pages are a terrible mess. Larger policies should be given their own page and the wording should be toned down to sound more friendly to newbies, because (and let's be honest here) how many people really want to contribute to a website whose policies sound like something out of a legal document?

Content-wise, I'm still personally bitter about TS4, but I also realize that we have lots of articles involving TS1 and TS2 that could use some work. The wiki is one wiki with several sections, and even if our TS4 section is subpar, we can still work on content from previous games at the very least. I mean, it's better that some parts of the wiki get prettied-up as opposed to none at all.

I can't list all my thoughts here right now, right away, but we'll see how things go. Cheers to 2017! —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 00:32, January 7, 2017 (UTC)

Rewriting the policy pages has been a plan of mine for quite some time, but I feel like any attempt to do so results in me spinning my wheels in the mud for awhile. I'd love to team up with you and tackle the beast together (along with anyone else who wants to help out).
I'm not really impressed with TS4 personally, but I feel like C.Syde65 raises a good point - if users perceive that we're biased against a game they enjoy, they may be less willing to help us improve our articles on that game. I've seen a lot of negative reaction to the game on the wiki, and I think it wouldn't hurt to tone it down a little bit. Obviously everyone is entitled to their own opinion. But, something is giving users the perception that the wiki as a whole values certain content over other content, and that is a problem. -- LiR talk · blog · contribs 03:08, January 8, 2017 (UTC)


So this thread has been quiet for two months now, and I thought it might be a good time to start discussing some strategies to get some wheels turning again.

I've noticed that the quality of the wiki has been on a progressive decline. I won't pin the blame on specific users, but it does seem that we're receiving more and more edits that are filled with choppy or poor grammar, typos, or otherwise badly written text, and there are too few experienced or good editors fixing these problems. The word I'm looking for is copyediting. Wikipedia has a page about doing this and even has a Guild of Copy Editors. While we may not get to something of such a scale, I think it's worth creating a few pages that will help get us on track about copyediting. Failing that, I think we could start a few "Copyediting Drives" of our own and work at a set of pages in a category or topic and copyedit those articles.

This is currently the least I, as a non-TS4 player, can do about TS4 articles, since I obviously cannot write much content about these articles. However, there's a lot of articles on TSW, and I can't exactly get to 12K articles all on my own.

Thoughts? —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 20:36, March 11, 2017 (UTC)

New accounts created by same person

I just noticed on Recent Changes that the accounts MidgetSimmer (talk), The Midget Simmer (talk), MidgetBrigette (talk), and MidgieBrigi (talk) have just been created, all within five minutes of each other. This is obviously the same person creating multiple accounts; I'd presume that they are having some difficulties in completing the registration, or they do not realize that their account registration has been successful. As such, I think we should refrain from blocking any of the accounts, and instead allow this person the time to successfully log into one of the accounts, where we can then contact them and give further assistance. -- LiR talk · blog · contribs 00:04, January 7, 2017 (UTC)

There is also BrigetteJudith (talk), which has actually created a userpage. Dharden (talk) 01:04, January 7, 2017 (UTC)

Rearranging rights requests pages

I'm planning on rearranging the user rights requests pages. This is the hierarchy I'm thinking of:

All other "special positions" would be dissolved, or else the formal request pages for them would be removed in favor of a request placed on the Admin's Noticeboard instead. The only position that I believe is in need of retention is the social media rep position.

Can anyone think of a more appropriate way to arrange the requests? My goal in this process is to cut down on the number of requests pages we have, and possibly streamline the requests process for minor positions like Social Media rep or rollback. -- LiR talk · blog · contribs 03:30, January 8, 2017 (UTC)

The way you have it outlined, it looks OK to me. Dharden (talk) 03:40, January 8, 2017 (UTC)
Per Dharden. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 03:42, January 8, 2017 (UTC)


Vanyaloveis (talk · contribs · editcount · block · modify rights · logs · block log)

Vanyaloveis edits mostly on the Russian Sims Wiki, although they have made a few edits here on the English wiki as well. While I'm sure they are editing in good faith, given the fact that they do have some constructive edits, they've recently reached a point where I unfortunately feel an APTP thread has become necessary. They've been known to remove external links on the wiki simply because they're dead, rather than trying to fix it with {{Wayback}} or tagging it with {{Deadlink}}. They've been warned about this behaviour before and they continue to remove external links. They have not responded to any of the messages left on their talk page about this. They've been doing this since August 2014.

At this point I would like another administrator to take a look at this situation and give a second opinion on this. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 00:36, February 9, 2017 (UTC)

When I first came across this message, the first idea that popped into my head was a formal warning, though I'm unsure if that would be the best practice, given that there's no evidence that they are acting in bad faith, in-fact I agree with the claim that they are editing in good faith, and that they do have some constructive edits. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 03:03, February 9, 2017 (UTC)
I wonder if trying to contact the user on the Russian Sims Wiki might be a better way of contacting them. They might not check the user page here since they aren't regular users here. I have a feeling that this is a difference in policy that this user is just unaware of. – Icemandeaf (talk) 04:21, February 9, 2017 (UTC)
@Icemandeaf: When a user is left a message, whether it be on a classic user talk page or a message wall, they get a cross-wiki notification. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 12:30, February 9, 2017 (UTC)
Maybe they don't really understand English? Just trying to give 'em a benefit of a doubt. Maybe we can try leaving a message in Russian? – Icemandeaf (talk) 14:12, February 9, 2017 (UTC)
I second Icemandeaf's comment - it's possible that the user doesn't understand the warning they're receiving. Maybe there's an admin on the Russian TSW that also speaks English, that could translate for us? I'm not sure that leaving this in the hands of a translator program like Google would be best. -- LiR talk · blog · contribs 15:20, February 9, 2017 (UTC)
To be honest I must second Icemandeaf's comment as well. I was considering translating a message from English to Russian, though like LiR has hinted, using a translator may not be the best practice. I've used a translator in the past many times, and I do remember there being occasions where others have said that it didn't translate particularly well. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 19:21, February 9, 2017 (UTC)
I left Ajay Ghale a note. They seem to know English, since I've seen them translating English articles into Russian on the Russian Sims Wiki. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 20:10, February 12, 2017 (UTC)


Icon yes check v
Issue is resolved
User has been able to edit. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 22:01, February 22, 2017 (UTC)

Blameitonmyotp has left a message on my talk page on the Crash Bandicoot Wiki telling me that she has been blocked on the Sims wiki. I checked the block list and from what I can see, it appears that she has been caught in a proxy block that was placed on an IP that she is apparently under.

I'm not very familiar with how proxies work, so I'm unsure what the best course of action would be. I am convinced that she hasn't done anything wrong, in-fact it's pretty clear that she hasn't done anything wrong. Although it's pretty apparent that she wasn't the intended blockee, I haven't had any experience with how proxies work myself, and thus I am unsure how to proceed with this issue. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 04:44, February 22, 2017 (UTC)

The {{Proxyblock}} blocks are targeted at open proxies, which basically allow any user to use the Internet over the proxy server's Internet connection and using the proxy's IP address. These should be blocked on public websites like wikis and forums because they can be used to circumvent blocks and cause disruption.
I'm not 100% convinced that this is a proxy-related block because the only block I can see so far that expires on April 6 is an underage-user block that doesn't have autoblock enabled, so it couldn't possibly affect Blameitonmyotp at all. I've asked the user to provide their Block ID number so we can find out for sure which block they're currently affected by. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 13:48, February 22, 2017 (UTC)
User has been able to upload a file, so that's settled, then. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 22:01, February 22, 2017 (UTC)

Themasterofdenial and C.Syde65

Per the messages left on my talk page, I must say that I am not impressed at all with what happened here, considering that I am indeed very busy in real life and for an administrator to be involved sickens me.

Now, the story goes is that, after a lengthy discussion regarding a block on Themasterofdenial, C.Syde65 archived his talk page. In the original archive was the following message:

::I was not banned from Community Central Chat for back-chatting; I was banned for spamming. That can't carry over to other wikis. 

::In addition, I never brought drama to this wiki, even though you continue to say that I did. All I did was revive an old thread and then restore it after you deleted it. Does that sound blockable to you? Does that sound like bringing any drama from other wikis?

::I also never refused to "drop the stick"; I just restored the thread, seeing its deletion as a unnecessary and as bordering on censorship.

::You even said that you only acted harshly because you were annoyed at the time. You even admitted to banning me out of pure anger and not because I was causing disruption. 

::This is not how an admin should be allowed to behave. This should not be tolerated. This is why we need a new justice system. This is why we need a punishment system built on collaboration and different perspectives.

::[[User:Themasterofdenial|Themasterofdenial]] ([[User talk:Themasterofdenial|talk]]) 07:09, August 17, 2016 (UTC)

This message was later overridden by another edit. Normally, users are free to remove messages from their talk page, but in general archive pages are not supposed to be edited except for maintenance purposes. There is no agreed-upon policy or guideline regarding removing messages from one's own talk page archives.

Re. Themasterofdenial

Themasterofdenial's history on The Sims Wiki is generally spotty, although this edit seems to speak for itself. While most of this user's activity appears on other wikis, it should be noted that they have been banned, as of this writing, three times from Community Central Chat [16], with the most recent being only two months ago. Other than that, I don't see an awful lot of red flags on other wikis. I do not have any chat logs of this user so I cannot make any definitive statements about their behaviour in that regard, however.

Re. C.Syde65

C.Syde65, while not having expressly violated any policies, have shown to be a poor recipient of criticism and other comments that may negatively portray him. In the past he had archived talk page messages way too early (per this edit). Despite lengthy discussions with C.Syde65, he still seems to dislike negative comments, and this recent act of removing such a comment from their talk page archive and then fully-protecting it as an involved administrator is likely to be seen as a potential misuse of the admin bit (See Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Administrators#Involved_admins and Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Administrators#Misuse_of_administrative_tools). While there is nothing wrong with protecting talk page archives, all page protections must be done with good reason, and should never be used to gain an advantage over a dispute where the administrator is involved in. As Wikipedia:WP:UPROT states: User pages and subpages can be protected upon a simple request from the user, as long as a need exists—pages in userspace should not be automatically or pre-emptively protected. Requests for protection specifically at uncommon levels (such as template protection) may be granted if the user has expressed a genuine and realistic need. I don't see such a "need" for page protection here, except the fact that C.Syde did not engage in discussion at all with Themasterofdenial, which is completely unacceptable for any editor, let alone an administrator.

Suggested resolutions

I disagree with blocking Themasterofdenial again, since I don't see any evidence of discussion with the user regarding this situation. However, this has been an ongoing pattern for C.Syde even before his RFA, and it is time we got serious about this.

I will leave it open to the rest of the administrative body to decide on possible remedies for this situation.

If I appear to have been harsh and/or frustrated, I apologize in advance: this is the start of a very busy month at school for me, and I am not in any mood to serve as an "Arbitrator" of any kind. To have to deal with this situation involving an administrator further wears my already thin level of patience.

k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 16:43, March 6, 2017 (UTC)

Comment moved to The Sims Wiki:Administrators' noticeboard. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 19:51, March 6, 2017 (UTC)

For the record, I've also noticed this. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 11:22, March 10, 2017 (UTC)

Suggested remedies

As suggested by LostInRiverview, here are the proposed remedies to resolve this situation:

  1. Themasterofdenial is to cease harassment of C.Syde65 or any other users while on The Sims Wiki, including in Wiki Chat. Themasterofdenial may engage with C.Syde65 only if they have legitimate reason to do so. If Themasterofdenial is found to have engaged in further harassment of any users on The Sims Wiki, they will be blocked from editing; subsequent harassment after block expiration will be met with escalating blocks.
  2. Issues between C.Syde65 and Themasterofdenial on other wikis or in other places on the internet are not to spill over into The Sims Wiki. We cannot police how C.Syde65 and Themasterofdenial behave outside TSW, but they are both urged to steer clear of each other and avoid conflict with one another.
  3. C.Syde65 is free to edit his talk page and archives as he sees fit, subject to relevant wiki policies. Users are strongly discouraged from editing another user's talk page archives for non-minor purposes unless they obtain permission from the archive owner first.
  4. C.Syde65 will apologize for his misuse of administrator tools and will not misuse his administrative position in the future.

I am supportive of the proposed remedies, and also open to the possibility of rediscussing this matter should harassment or improper use of admin tools continue. I invite other uninvolved administrators to voice their opinion about this. NB: Any administrator that is directly involved with the situation and/or who may have a conflict of interest in this case are expected to recuse. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 17:27, March 9, 2017 (UTC)

Icon yes check v Done Since there seems to be no further objections, and since active administrators have supported the remedies, I have gone ahead and applied editing restrictions on Themasterofdenial. The situation will be re-evaluated in about 30 days. Please leave this thread open so that any potential editing restriction breaches can be logged and discussed. This thread can be closed once the user leaves probation and the editing restriction is no longer deemed to be necessary. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 16:59, March 13, 2017 (UTC)


Red x cross uncheck bad
Discussion closed
No resolution needed - user has been globally blocked

Unblock 1 (talk · contribs · editcount · block · modify rights · logs · block log) has been blocked. The block reason states that Unblock 1 is a sockpuppet of User:Thesims2pets. I don't want to call k6ka's judgment into question, but I was wondering if he'd be able to elaborate a little bit on the evidence that caused him to come to this conclusion. It should be noted that Unblock 1 has requested an unblock, so this is a somewhat time-sensitive issue. -- LiR talk · blog · contribs 20:00, April 1, 2017 (UTC)

I was going to post here shortly after the block, but I had to run shortly afterwards.
The biggest factor that led me to block was a ban from Community Central chat. Thesims2pets and their socks have been banned from CC Chat before, and while I don't have any logs of the incident, I suspected that, given their username, this was plausible evidence.
Secondly, their edits on The Sims Answers Wiki is similar that of another sockpuppet, such as marking pages for deletion and answering questions with short, poorly written responses.
Thirdly, some of their behaviours on other wikis match those of previously blocked sockpuppets, such as the use of emojis, random uses of "WTF", and vandalizing other wikis by creating tons of single letter or poorly written pages (The latter has been deleted and blocked by a VSTF member).
Fourthly, and I acknowledge that this came after the block, but their latest unblock request, aside from being inadequate, denies knowing anything about Thesims2pets and forgets to sign their post, much like Pets1 did here.
I have some other evidence which I am happy to share with any interested administrator privately over IRC. I can also elaborate more on the given evidence above over IRC as well. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 21:04, April 1, 2017 (UTC)
It should also be noted that the user has now been globally blocked. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 23:06, April 1, 2017 (UTC)
Given that the user is globally blocked, this block is a moot point. -- LiR talk · blog · contribs 21:02, April 2, 2017 (UTC)

Ansett4Sims and RomerJon17

These two accounts are apparently both owned by the same user, and they have both received messages on previous occasions asking them to stick to only one account. While the user who owns the accounts does not appear to be acting in bad faith, they have not directly responded to the messages that they have been given, although they did log in to their other account to edit their user-page after I undid their latest edit to the user-page owned by their other account. I'm not quite sure what the best thing would be to do in this situation as I don't recall ever being involved in a situation regarding two accounts being owned by one user that isn't acting in bad faith. Which is why I brought the issue here. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 12:09, May 26, 2017 (UTC)

It may be worth talking to them again about their use of multiple accounts, but they definitely aren't abusing them. Thing is, though, we still have Forum:Multiple account policy that's still open and awaiting further input; I think having that policy set up will help us to act more reasonably in circumstances like this. The use of multiple accounts for illegitimate reasons is not at all unfamiliar to us, I'm sure, but not the good faith (or at least, non-bad faith) use of them. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 13:52, May 26, 2017 (UTC)

Unblock request on User talk:يمارس الجنس مع الشواذ

I encourage administrators to review their edit filter log before making a decision. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 18:08, August 4, 2017 (UTC)

To be honest, I think they shouldn't be unblocked. The edits they tried to make after they tried to make portable info-boxes that triggered the abuse filter shows me that they aren't willing to build the Sims wiki. It seems clear to be that they aren't being truthful when they say that they are trying to convert info-boxes to be portable. It seems like a load of nonsense to me, since they shouldn't be doing questionable things if they're trying to be helpful by trying to convert non-portable info-boxes. And that they need to stop doing things that trigger the abuse filter if they want other users to trust them. I strongly oppose this user getting unblocked, and that they should wait their block out if they want to be given a chance to improve. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 22:21, August 4, 2017 (UTC)

User:Amazon Fire TV Stick

Hello friends. I wish my first action on this wiki in more than a year could have been on a more positive note, but I'm afraid it is not. As I am sure all administrators will be aware the moment they next log on, this user has issued a threat—entitled "Things Are About To Change Around Here" (sic)—to all admins, claiming that they are a member of Fandom Staff (they are not—I checked the Community Staff page just to make sure). They also created this blog post. Based on the language this user has used, they may be a sock attempting to take revenge on the administrative team, but I can't be sure, since I've been gone for quite some time.

Anyway, since I appeared to be the only admin active at this hour, I immediately moved to block this user, to prevent them from inflicting any lasting damage on the wiki or its community. Do with that what you will, I suppose. — THE TIM TAM IS MY SPIRIT ANIMAL (TSWAHMGWContribs) 14:43, August 13, 2017 (UTC)

Welcome back, Tim. Sorry to hear that your first admin action on the wiki in a long while was to deal with this long-time sockpuppet. I have bot rollbacked their edits. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 16:10, August 13, 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I would have responded to the issue, had I been awake at the time. Looks like they were able to do quite a bit which can only mean that it was some time before any administrator was around to deal with the issue. It's a long time sock-puppet of a long time troll user that's been causing a lot of trouble over the last couple of years. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 20:43, August 13, 2017 (UTC)

Lock blocked user talk pages?

It seems as though our perennial friend has taken to posting on the talk pages of users that have been indefinitely blocked from editing The Sims Wiki. C.Syde has protected a few of these talk pages from further editing, and it seems like it's probably a good idea to just protect them all, to close off that particular avenue of annoyance. I'd propose that we only add protection (in this case, full protection) to talk pages of users that are indef blocked and have no right to appeal the block, with a particular focus on locking the talk pages of particularly notorious users first. I'm generally not in favor of excessive page protection or in prophylactic protection, but in this case I think the harm that could be done in protecting these pages is nonexistent - there's simply no reason why a non-admin would ever need to edit the page of a permanently blocked user, especially in such cases where the user him/herself isn't allowed to edit his/her own talk page.

Thoughts? -- LiR talk · blog · contribs 23:32, August 26, 2017 (UTC)

Addition: As an afterthought, it might also be useful to extend semi-protection to indefinitely-blocked or long-term blocked user talk pages as well. It stands to reason that if we limit his ability to edit permablocked talk pages, he'll simply move onto posting on the pages of those users who can still appeal blocks. In these cases, I'd advocate for a semi-protection, so that way the blocked user can still request unblock as long as they retain talk page editing privileges. Thoughts on this as well? -- LiR talk · blog · contribs 23:36, August 26, 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good. I could have protected all the ones that were being modified by non-admins, but I just wasn't entirely sure how uncontroversial it would be. I knew it would be justified to protect the ones of the indefinitely blocked users with globally disabled accounts since they wouldn't be able to request an unblock anyway, which is why I protected the talk pages of those particular users, since as far as I could see, there was no reason why a non-admin should be editing them, especially not if they're trolling. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 23:38, August 26, 2017 (UTC)
I support indefinitely fully protecting the user talk pages of users if:
  1. The user is indefinitely blocked with no talk page access, and is a sockpuppet account (Through which any appeals must be made through the main account); OR
  2. The user's account has been globally disabled (Not globally blocked) for over 30 days (After that point, disabled accounts cannot be recovered). The talk page should be replaced with a message stating that the account has been disabled and that all previous messages can be found in the page history (If the user had an archive system in place, all the messages on the talk page should be archived in that fashion) (We should probably create a template for this purpose).
Other people's talk pages can be semi-protected, either upon request or at an admin's discretion, but I would not recommend indefinitely protecting them, since that also locks out legitimate IP users from being able to contact the user. During the time such a talk page is protected, users affected by the protection should be encouraged to contact the user via alternative means, such as on Community Central (In my case I let users email me as well).
Also, I don't think it should be a requirement to protect the talk pages of indefinitely blocked or globally disabled accounts; admins should choose to protect (or not to protect) such pages at their (hopefully wise) discretion. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 00:22, August 27, 2017 (UTC)

LostInRiverview alt accounts

Yesterday I created a deliberate sockpuppet account at User:LostInRiverview3. My initial plan was to create multiple accounts, to reserve those names so that no one else could create accounts to imitate me. After creating the first one though, I realized that this was probably an incorrect course of action, but the cat was already out of the bag. Today, our old friend created "LostInRiverview 4" and attempted to imitate me. I want to post here and state clearly that I will not create any more alternate accounts at any time. Any accounts created on The Sims Wiki that appear to be me are not me. -- LiR talk · blog · contribs 18:37, August 28, 2017 (UTC)

Yeah. Thanks for the heads up. Even though it already seemed clear which of these two accounts was the real impostor, partly because the first account didn't show any signs of trolling, whereas the second account did. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 21:07, August 28, 2017 (UTC)
I also logged into this account immediately after creating the alt account and edited the alt account userpage to confirm that it was attached to me. I also blocked the alt account indefinitely as per the wiki's "one person, one active account" policy. But I think it hindsight it was a mistake to even create the alt in the first place. I wouldn't encourage others to take a similar approach to solving the problem. -- LiR talk · blog · contribs 21:13, August 28, 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, neither would I to be honest. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 21:15, August 28, 2017 (UTC)

Mass-rollbacking disruptive edits

Recently we've had a rash of mass disruptive edits being made by a well known long term abuser (LTA). While the most we can do at the moment is to revert and block, the edits—both by the LTA and the reverter—flood recent changes dramatically, making it difficult to use.

To resolve this problem, I would like to introduce to administrators who may not be aware of this trick already a feature in MediaWiki that allows administrators to hide mass disruptive edits from recent changes.

To do this with any additional accounts created by the LTA (And with potential future ones):

  1. Open the contributions page for the user you wish to revert edits by.
  2. Add ?bot=1 to the end of the URL (e.g. If the URL already has a question mark in it, or if it has index.php in it, use &bot=1: Hit Enter.

Now all of the rollback links on the page should have &bot=1 suffixed on them. When you click on them (If there are lots of edits, you can open them in a new tab), the edit you make will be marked as a bot edit on the recent changes table and will thus be hidden by default (Unless you click on the "Show bot edits" option in recent changes). Additionally, the software will give the edit of the user you reverted the bot edit flag as well, so both edits will be hidden from recent changes by default. This does not hide the edit from user contributions pages or from the page history (The bot edit flag property is only used by recent changes and watchlists), and the edit is not removed from the database.
You'd want to use this trick when reverting a malicious user's clearly bad faith edits, especially if they had made a large quantity of such edits. Use this sparingly: don't use it for most cases of run-of-the-mill vandalism or for edits you merely disagree with. Subject to the standard restrictions on rollback.

Additionally, if you use a tool like WHAM to mass rollback edits, it is compatible with this trick; just add ?bot=1/&bot=1 to the URL before you click on the links in WHAM. By the way, this doesn't affect any edits you do not revert using rollback, and it won't affect log entries.

Further reading

k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 00:12, August 29, 2017 (UTC)

I'm very familiar with the existence of this trick, however I've never actually used it myself, since I don't believe I've ever been in a situation where it was necessary to do so, and in any case, I've never been fully confident that I understood or knew exactly how to do it. I guess it's something I should play around with on a wiki or test page that no one cares what I do on / with it. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 02:09, August 29, 2017 (UTC)

Site-wide message for Volunteer Curators

Sannse recently posted on my talk page asking if a site-wide message could be created bringing attention to this blog post about Volunteer Curators. The blog post and its content do not affect The Sims Wiki or its content; it's more of something on Wikia/Fandom's end.

As this isn't a decision for one administrator to make, I'm posting it here to query other administrators for opinions and consensus. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 23:37, September 18, 2017 (UTC)

My overall reaction is meh. On the one hand, FANDikia is free to do whatever they want with the Fandom blog platform, and if anyone on TSW wants to participate, I encourage them to do so and I wish them luck. But on the other hand, the amount of FANDOM spam I've been bombarded with, especially messages about things I couldn't care less about, especially messages about different game/movie/TV franchises whose wikis I've never visited, let alone edited... has really turned me off to the whole idea of their advertisements. And now they want us to do the dirty work for them? o_O
So yeah, I don't have a problem with the Fandom blog thing, but I don't think we need to do any sort of advertisement here to assist them. -- LiR talk · blog · contribs 23:48, September 18, 2017 (UTC)
I think I'd say the same to be honest. I don't really care much for the FANDOM side of things, since I didn't sign up for that. I'm not really bothered by it either. I just ignore the FANDOM side of things, in favour of the Wikia side, because as far as I'm concerned, it's still the same network that I joined back in December 2013, which I browsed since late 2008. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 12:12, September 19, 2017 (UTC)