The Sims Wiki talk:Admin Portal

Community

Community Portal (talk) · Community Discussions forum
Fanon Portal (talk) · Game Guide Portal (talk) · Development Portal (talk) · Admin Portal (talk) · Main Page talk

Archives Resolved Discussions

Weekly Facebook page stats (old page)

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

The Sims Wiki

69 monthly active users 4 since last week

89 people like this 10 since last week

1 wall post or comment this week 1 since last week

113 visits this week 54 since last week

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

82 monthly active users 15 since last week

124 people like this 19 since last week

4 wall posts and comments this week 4 since last week

92 visits this week 30 since last week

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

73 monthly active users down 9 since last week

133 people like this up 9 since last week

7 wall posts and comments this week up 3 since last week

42 visits this week down 50 since last week

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

November 8, 2010

71 monthly active users (down) 2 since last week

140 people like this (up) 7 since last week

0 wall posts and comments this week (down) 7 since last week

37 visits this week (down) 5 since last week

November 15, 2010

65 monthly active users (down) 6 since last week

149 people like this (up) 9 since last week

0 wall posts and comments this week no change since last week

30 visits this week (down) 7 since last week

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

79 monthly active users up 14 since last week

153 people like this up 4 since last week

1 wall post or comment this week up 1 since last week

46 visits this week up 16 since last week

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

98 monthly active users up 19 since last week

161 people like this up 8 since last week

1 wall post or comment this week no change since last week

71 visits this week up 25 since last week

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

109 monthly active users up 11 since last week

173 people like this up 12 since last week

2 wall posts and comments this week up 1 since last week

47 visits this week down 24 since last week

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

112 monthly active users up 3 since last week

178 people like this up 5 since last week

2 wall posts and comments this week no change since last week

42 visits this week down 5 since last week

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

113 monthly active users up 1 since last week

183 people like this up 5 since last week

1 wall post or comment this week down 1 since last week

71 visits this week up 29 since last week

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

December 27, 2010

113 monthly active users no change since last week

186 people like this up 3 since last week

5 wall posts and comments this week up 4 since last week

45 visits this week down 26 since last week

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

January 3, 2011

102 monthly active users down 11 since last week

186 people like this no change since last week

0 wall posts or comments this week down 5 since last week

49 visits this week up 4 since last week

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

Facebook Page Statistics

In the spirit of providing up-to-date information on the Facebook page, I'd like to resume posting weekly updates on stats for our page.

The Sims Wiki's Facebook page!

As of May 24, 2012

45 Total Likes

20 People talking about us, down 31.03% this week

117 Weekly Total Reach

- LiR ^{speak ~ read} 21:21, May 24, 2012 (UTC)

As of June 6, 2012

Apologies for missing a week, I was without internet access.

80 Total Likes

21 People talking about this, up 5% from last week

471 Weekly total reach, up 36.52%

Here's some interesting stats about our page likes; 36 'liked' because of a Like box on an external (i.e. not Facebook) site, such as the Box on the mainpage, 7 'liked' on the Facebook page itself, 2 'liked' from a mobile device, and 1 'liked' in response to seeing a friend like the page. - LiR ^{speak ~ read} 03:20, June 8, 2012 (UTC)

June 14, 2012

109 Likes, 36.25% for the period June 6-14

33 People talking about this, 57.14% for June 7-14

609 Weekly total reach, 49.26% for June 5-12

Admins - if you are on Facebook, please like the page and contact me so I can make you an administrator on the page. - LiR ^{speak ~ read} 21:08, June 14, 2012 (UTC)

June 21, 2012

133 Likes, 20.91% for the period June 14-21

23 People talking about this, 30.3% for June 14-21

767 Weekly total reach, 25.94% for June 12-19

- LiR ^{speak ~ read} 18:15, June 21, 2012 (UTC)

July 29, 2012

I forgot to keep this up-to-date, my apologies. The following covers the previous week period, not the time since the last update on this page.

232 Likes 9.95% for the period July 22-29

25 People talking about this, 150% for the period July 22-29

492 Weekly total reach, 25.94% for June 20-27

- LiR ^{speak ~ read} 20:26, July 29, 2012 (UTC)

Social networks and Google+

Hello, fellow admins.

So, since the re-creation of the Facebook page and the revival of our Twitter profile, I think we should also have a Google+ page, in order to attract more fans, since this social network has also diverse user demographics.

I'd like to hear your suggestions. DanPin • talk • contribs 06:24, May 25, 2012 (UTC)

I'm ok with this. As a side note, this wiki does have a gmail account, however the password of it is unknown to me, so maybe if we found that out we could use it for this? ―ฬђ ^talk 07:00, May 25, 2012 (UTC)

Since I don't know about Google+, I can't say much about this. Nikel _Talk 07:44, May 25, 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, Google+ has YouTube integration, if someone has the password to the YT account then we can just integrate it with Google+, otherwise we may as well create both a new YT and G+ account at the same time. Lost Labyrinth • (c) • (b) 08:02, May 25, 2012 (UTC)

I have access to the Google group that was set up with the passwords to Twitter and Gmail; I can log into that group and send the password out through sendops on the IRC. I don't have time to do it right now, though. - LiR ^{speak ~ read} 11:28, May 25, 2012 (UTC)

As far as I read this morning, we can create pages on G+ just like we can do on Facebook. DanPin • talk • contribs 13:42, May 25, 2012 (UTC)

I've created Google + pages in the past, and I don't like them as much as Facebook Pages - they're not as versatile and IIRC you can only have one administrator. But since we'll be using the wiki Google account, that won't really matter much. I'll work on setting the page up soonish. -- LiR ^{speak ~ read} 18:17, May 25, 2012 (UTC)

Before you start, LiR, I found out that G+ has added recently multiple admin capabilities (as one can see here), so that shouldn't be much of a hassle. DanPin • talk • contribs 22:12, May 25, 2012 (UTC)

You can link facebook and twitter each other. so we will need 1 status update to update all the social network. But I dont sure about google + Wiryawan310 15:25, May 26, 2012 (UTC)

I try to give a touch on the facebook page. I hope it have a better look :) Wiryawan310 16:09, May 26, 2012 (UTC)

Wir, where did you get the Facebook Page's cover photo from? -- LiR ^{speak ~ read} 16:10, May 26, 2012 (UTC)

I got from the official site, I found it is match for the banner. I change the banner to the next katy perry stuff, because it is almost the time for the game released. I dont found our old wiki logo. I only found the small one and it cant become the facebook page Icon. do you have the bigger one? Wiryawan310 16:16, May 26, 2012 (UTC)

I took the Katy Perry cover photo off, I think the cover and profile pics should be more generic and related to the series, not an individual game. Plus, NO KATY PERRY, please!. As for the profile picture... I chose the current one only because I could not find anything else that was even passable as a picture. -- LiR ^{speak ~ read} 16:19, May 26, 2012 (UTC)

check the facebook page for diesel banner. UPDATE: Its not good. Switch to the old one. Wiryawan310 16:24, May 26, 2012 (UTC)

User:Ssjoe13

Ssjoe13 (talk · contribs · editcount · block · modify rights · logs · block log) has been persistently adding the same edit to Life state, even though it keeps getting removed as unsourced. I have left messages on the user's talk page asking that they provide a source for the statement, but I'm not sure what more to do. Dharden (talk) 03:13, June 16, 2012 (UTC)

I think we will follow our rules, because you already write the explanation into the talk page right? keep adding that information can be categorized as inserting false info and edit warring another same edit will result a block. I know we cannot bite the newbie but the newbie cannot stubborn too. Wiryawan310 08:49, June 16, 2012 (UTC)

We can temporarily protect the page as an alternative if we don't block him, since he's a new user. His persistence is enough for a block, especially that he never replies the message. Nikel _{Talk – Vote for Featured Media!} 09:40, June 16, 2012 (UTC)

I've protected the page as he didn't really mean any harm by adding the info and I don't think a block is warranted yet. I'd support a block if they persisted with it after the protection expires or do something similar on another page. ―ฬђ ^talk 09:45, June 16, 2012 (UTC)

He has a warning on his talk page already so truth be told he's one wrong move away from a block. Lost Labyrinth • (c) • (b) 12:32, June 16, 2012 (UTC)

And for what it's worth he has tripped an abuse filter by attempting to add a pejorative to life state, if anyone feels any action should be taken on that. Lost Labyrinth • (c) • (b) 12:41, June 16, 2012 (UTC)

OK, that puts a slightly different light on things, as it appears that he is ignoring his talk page, or at least ignoring what he doesn't want to hear. Dharden (talk) 13:25, June 16, 2012 (UTC)

I think it's a little obvious that he ignores it on purpose, and apparently, he will attempt to persist in doing it again. Nikel _{Talk – Vote for Featured Media!} 13:39, June 16, 2012 (UTC)

They haven't edited since I left a warning (their last edit was at 02:50, I warned at 03:52). Since the page is semi-protected (this user is not auto-confirmed), it's safe for now, but if that should change or if the protection is lifted and this user repeats their edit, they should receive a block for edit warring and inserting unsourced information. I'd say 3 days because of the number of warnings they've received, but that's up to whomever blocks the person (if they should repeat their actions). -- LiR ^{speak ~ read} 16:08, June 16, 2012 (UTC)

Smexymamma78

Smexymamma78 (talk · contribs · editcount · block · modify rights · logs · block log) seems to be a moderately inappropriate username, or is it just okay? "She" seems not to be doing something bad though. Nikel _{Talk – Vote!} 16:02, July 3, 2012 (UTC)

I'd say it's borderline. For now I'd go without doing anything about it. Lost Labyrinth • (c) • (b) 16:49, July 3, 2012 (UTC)

User:Admin22

I'm somewhat concerned about Admin22 (talk · contribs · editcount · block · modify rights · logs · block log) as a username on the basis that someone looking for help may become confused (despite the colour coding making admins/crats stand out) into thinking that this user is actually an admin. I know this seems ignorable to an extent as the username isn't actually offensive but I would like to know what others think. Lost Labyrinth • (c) • (b) 16:51, July 3, 2012 (UTC)

I'd say we just keep a lose eye on the user, with a name like that we can't be too sure if anything will happen. Starmoonie(Talk Here) 18:34, July 3, 2012 (UTC)

I think we should block them and let them register another username. ―ฬђ ^talk 23:46, July 3, 2012 (UTC)

Before taking any action, we must let him know first, just a reminder... Nikel _{Talk – Vote!} 10:33, July 4, 2012 (UTC)

I left a note on his talk page. Dharden (talk) 12:44, July 4, 2012 (UTC)

I've permanently blocked the user as a checkuser I got to see if an IP and account were related also showed this as a sock of a perma'd user. ―ฬђ ^talk 02:00, July 5, 2012 (UTC)

User:Corymach7

Corymach7 (talk · contribs · editcount · block · modify rights · logs · block log) has been persistently creating pages on rumoured stuff packs with absolutely no confirmation on them, as well as persistently adding false information. Given he's already recieved 2 blocks I doubt he'll stop. Before I hand out another block I'd like to see what you guys think should be done. ―ฬђ ^talk 01:21, July 22, 2012 (UTC)

I would have warned and blocked him if what he was doing was breaking the rules or precedent, but since we already have 'ideas' pages for proposed games in the forums, I didn't feel justified in deleting the pages or taking action against him (other than renaming the pages so it didn't seem like the games were confirmed). Personally I think the pages should go as they don't contribute much of anything and only stand to confuse readers, but I don't think any action should be taken against him since he's not technically doing anything wrong. If he re-created deleted pages, then I'd see a point in doing something. -- LiR ^{speak ~ read} 01:23, July 22, 2012 (UTC)

I've noticed that he is persistent in trying to pass off rumours (or in cases, his own personal creations) as facts. His forum pages may as well be deleted (the nominated ones are already gone). He seems to have made a few good faith edits but I don't think we should give him a long term block just yet. I am however going to delete the remainder of his forum threads and inform him of this as an extrapelation of the note LiR already left for him. Lost Labyrinth • (c) • (b) 11:35, July 22, 2012 (UTC)

Having looked over his edits, it seems that he is a mixture of both over-ambitious and slightly ignorant of our policies. I think for this user, a restrictions system similar to that of which is used at Uncyclopedia may help. We can basically jot down the problems (like his passion for rumours etc.), specific rules/restrictions for the user (e.g. like no rumour forums or adding rumours without irrefutable proof), what happens if they breach a restriction (e.g. a block that gradually gets longer when repeated), comments and if sufficient improvement has been made in his conduct then he could be placed on probation for a little while and if he doesn't do anything disruptive in that time he could be parolled completely. I'm not sure how practical it could be by having a system like this on TSW, which could be helpful for dealing with various other users too, but it's just an idea. Lost Labyrinth • (c) • (b) 00:55, July 28, 2012 (UTC)

So long as its fair to the user and isn't too strict or too lenient, I'm in favor of trying any different ideas. I certainly think, except for the rumors issue, that this user is acting in good faith with their edits. As for the rumors, they seem to be a bit obsessed with 'making a rumor', for what reason I don't know. So if they start to re-create pages or start new rumors, I'd support such a restriction. I don't know if adopting a system like this wiki-wide would be practical, but in individual circumstances it could be helpful, especially if the user isn't being a troll/vandal/person we can easily justify blocking. -- LiR ^{speak ~ read} 02:24, July 28, 2012 (UTC)

So we're making some special restrictions to the user, while as long as he does anything else other than what he's restricted, he's free? I think this is kind of special case like this... Not sure if it can be fully implemented... We can make him as a test subject though. Nikel _{Talk – Vote – Guess!} 04:53, July 28, 2012 (UTC)

I've created a draft of the feature if anyone wants to take a look and fiddle around before I move it out of my userspace and whatnot. As for LiR's first point about being fair to the user, not too strict or lenient, I've put on the draft that an admin wishing to impose a new restriction should bring it up on this page first so that we can all agree on the terms of it, whether it's appropriate and whatnot.

This is a trial for now and it is generally best suited for users who can be troublesome but not justifiable for an indefinite block - no point putting a restriction on a user whose blatantly a bad faith editor. Feel free to tweak my draft accordingly, let me know what you think of how it's set out, what could be improved and what you think of the restriction I've placed on this user (which isn't actually active yet as this is currently a userspace draft). Lost Labyrinth • (c) • (b) 11:13, July 28, 2012 (UTC)

If possible, should it be done now, or will Corymach7 be eventually blocked before we can try this out? He made another edit in the rumor page again. I just let him free for now. Nikel _{Talk – Vote – Guess!} 16:48, July 28, 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to start up the discussion about the editing restrictions system in a new subject line below. We can revisit this particular user's restriction after the restriction system itself is finalized. -- LiR ^{speak ~ read} 16:50, July 28, 2012 (UTC)

In relation to the original purpose of this section, this user has just got himself a 3 day block for edit warring and inserting false information once again. Lost Labyrinth • (c) • (b) 16:56, July 28, 2012 (UTC)

I bumped it up to a week, as I felt they deserved longer. Maybe a week block will get the message through. I left quite a lengthy explanation on the talk page as well. -- LiR ^{speak ~ read} 17:02, July 28, 2012 (UTC)

Given that the Editing restrictions system has been put into place, Corymach7's restriction (which I drafted before the system was "officially" implemented) can come into place once his block expires. The restriction is aimed at the major problems surrounding this user including:

• Creating prediction threads for unannounced entries to the series.
• Adding rumors to The Sims game rumors using either unreliable references, including ones he created himself, or simply none at all.
• Edit warring

The blocking system of each subsequent block doubling from the last one was put into place based on his previous offenses and to try and strengthen the message put across if he decides to ignore his additional restrictions/ruleset. I'm about to notify him of this so it's no surprise for when his block expires.

Admins, if you need to block him then be sure to a) check the block log for any previous blocks related to his restriction and double the length from his last block and b) make sure the block summary clearly states that he violated his restriction. There's no need to list his blocks on the Restrictions page. Also if he does something disruptive that's unrelated to his restrictions then he should be dealt with in the normal manner. Given that I instated the restrictions for him, I'll obviously be closely monitoring his behavior and I'd appreciate if other admins help to enforce them too. If anyone has anything they'd like to know about his restrictions then please don't hesitate to let me know. Lost Labyrinth • (c) • (b) 19:13, July 31, 2012 (UTC)

Lock the Player Stories pages?

Resolved: An Abuse Filter was created to prevent edits to Player Stories pages prior to their deletion. -- 23:31, July 26, 2012 (UTC)

I think we should decide (quickly) whether the player stories pages, which are set to be deleted (see here if that was a complete surprise to you) should be locked prior to their deletion date, or whether they should remain open for editing. If locked, users would still be able to access the page editor for those pages, but wouldn't be able to add new content. However, they'd still be able to copy content off the page, to be pasted somewhere else. If we chose to lock them, we could have one of our sysop-ranked bots do the dirty work for us. What do you think? -- LiR ^{speak ~ read} 22:16, July 25, 2012 (UTC)

I think they should be locked too. IMO, WoganBot can do the job. DanPin • talk • contribs22:18, July 25, 2012 (UTC)

Fully agree. (ノಠ益ಠ)ノ彡┻━┻)ǝıuooɯɹɐʇsVOTE! 22:22, July 25, 2012 (UTC)

Locking them seems to be a fair solution. Ѧüя◎ґ (talk) 22:47, July 25, 2012 (UTC)

Great idea. I totally think they should be locked too. 🌹Bakerychaz (talk page · blog)🌷 03:41, July 26, 2012 (UTC)

While I do agree with what you guys say, it wouldn't be feasible for me to protect ~3500 pages, it'd simply take too long. Instead, I'm going to try some other alternatives. Check here for updates. ―ฬђ ^talk 05:14, July 26, 2012 (UTC)

I do strongly agree that something like this should be done however due to Wikia's technical limitations, it's really easier said than done. As WH said, protecting every page, even with a bot, will be pretty time consuming. In addition to this, I tried to create a filter via Special:AbuseFilter a little while ago to try and stop users from adding stories as categories but it seems I can't designate a subpage nor can I do anything without it affecting the entire mainspace so...I'm out of ideas. Lost Labyrinth • (c) • (b) 06:42, July 26, 2012 (UTC)

Alas, technical limitations. While on the subject of bot actions and such, do you think that the problems we're having now with protecting the pages will return when we try to delete them? Obviously the deleting is going to have to be done by bots... will we run into the same issues? - LiR ^{speak ~ read} 14:37, July 26, 2012 (UTC)

Deleting every page will take quite a long time (~6 hours) similarly to protecting it. I'm doing some tests in my userspace with deletion and whatnot just so I can at least try to do it right and not delete every page on the wiki by accident. Lost Labyrinth • (c) • (b) 14:52, July 26, 2012 (UTC)

Another point related to the bot tasks is that it would probably be easier to delete than protect over a long timescale as when it comes to deletion, we could actually use more than one bot to do it and AWB would only list the non-deleted pages. For protecting, it will list every page and would probably have no advantage at all by using multiple bots. Lost Labyrinth • (c) • (b) 16:34, July 26, 2012 (UTC)

I can't say much to this. This is like we have to decide whether to protect or delete them. Both of them will be time-consuming (which I suppose we can deal with) and end up the same result: irreversible and stopping further edits. Technically, it's reversible, but I don't suppose we all want to undelete and unprotect them all again. Nikel _{Talk – Vote – Guess!} 19:22, July 26, 2012 (UTC)

This isn't about permanently protecting the pages, this is about protecting them until it's time to delete them in 28-or-so days. In any case, it appears that it would be impractical to do this. -- LiR ^{speak ~ read} 20:13, July 26, 2012 (UTC)

From some snooping around I just noticed that WH put up a filter which pretty much solved this whole protection problem completely. Looks like this is solved then. Lost Labyrinth • (c) • (b) 21:40, July 26, 2012 (UTC)

Tested it, the filter works. Resolved. -- LiR ^{speak ~ read} 23:31, July 26, 2012 (UTC)

Editing Restrictions

GEORGIEGIBBONS Has written up an Editing Restrictions page to address users what are good faith editors, but whom have one or more disciplinary problems. In his own words:

This is a trial for now and it is generally best suited for users who can be troublesome but not justifiable for an indefinite block - no point putting a restriction on a user whose blatantly a bad faith editor. Feel free to tweak my draft accordingly, let me know what you think of how it's set out, what could be improved and what you think of the restriction I've placed on [Corymach7] (which isn't actually active yet as this is currently a userspace draft). Lost Labyrinth • (c) • (b) 11:13, July 28, 2012 (UTC)

I personally think this could be an effective system to implement, but I have some concerns. My main concern is whether this might serve as a 'badge of shame' towards users, especially long after their behavioral problems are addressed and corrected. I'm a firm believer in the idea that people can change. But if there's a record of that user's behavior in the past, it could dissuade people from supporting them in the present if that user is pursuing special user rights (rollback, admin, b'crat), even if that user is 'paroled' and has honestly made a change. I think the simplest way to avoid this instance would be to remove the 'Paroled' section entirely, so that after any probationary period is up, the record of the user's problems is simply removed from the page. Another purely minor thing - the list of long-term/indefinite blocks... is it really necessary? We already have logs which list standing blocks and their reasons.

Finally, I'm not sure if there necessarily needs to be an approval process for new restrictions. After all, administrators are able to block users outright without coming here and asking for consensus among the admins (although generally longer-term blocks are discussed, this is not a matter of policy and admins can - and have - issued long-term or indefinite blocks without consulting others' opinions here), so why should an administrator need to seek permission for issuing what is admittedly a less severe sentence? Since the whole admin team would be relied upon to enforce the restrictions, it seems to me that the most obvious solution here is to have all new restrictions approved by default. If an administrator has an issue with a restriction that another admin imposed, they could then bring the issue up and the admins could consent to a definite course of action. Just a side note - I'm aware that the current draft doesn't call for an admin consensus to new restrictions. I like the way the draft is written presently as it relates to this, I simply wanted to make it known that I wouldn't support a more restrictive system.

So, all-in-all, I think this is a promising system. -- LiR ^{speak ~ read} 16:50, July 28, 2012 (UTC)

As some of you may have guessed, I pretty much did copy the framework from Uncyclopedia and I knew I'd be changing things before anything is finalised and whatnot. LiR's points are fully understandable. If they've been parolled then that's the end of it, if the user does mess up again then the old restriction would still be in the page history for reference. Same with the blocked users thingy - if they're blocked then there's no point leaving the restriction there, again the page history will still contain everything. Having no need for consensus to add a restriction is useful too. As long as the restriction is reasonable, there's no reason not to go against it and anyone who does have an issue can simply bring it up with the admin who instated a specific restriction.

I've gone ahead and made those changes per what LiR said. I've also removed the "Watchlist" section as again that could go down as a "badge of shame" towards a user who changes their behavior before a restriction is even imposed. Feel free to say what you think of this system. Lost Labyrinth • (c) • (b) 17:14, July 28, 2012 (UTC)

I like the idea and think it would be very useful to the wiki. DanPin • talk • contribs17:08, July 30, 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Even if we don't use it all that much it'd be useful to have it there for if we need it. ―ฬђ ^talk 23:36, July 30, 2012 (UTC)

Seeing as the consensus is generally favourable all around with no opposition, I've moved the userspace version to The Sims Wiki:Editing restrictions. Feel free to let me know if you have any comments on the system. Lost Labyrinth • (c) • (b) 19:02, July 31, 2012 (UTC)

User:Morris lupin

Resolved: User has been permanently blocked.

Morris lupin (talk · contribs · editcount · block · modify rights · logs · block log) has received 2 blocks for vandalism, personal attacks, adding vanity to his userspace after being told not to, creating spam blogs and an inappropriate fanon article (check his deleted contributions). In addition, he has spammed Special:Chat with the same vanity he's been adding all over the place and even joined IRC and did the same thing. Currently all of his bans are set at 1 week but I'm actually quite pessimistic in thinking that we're going to see any improvement... Lost Labyrinth • (c) • (b) 19:09, August 12, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I don't see much hope here. I'd be fine with a perma ban myself. ―ฬђ ^talk 01:26, August 13, 2012 (UTC)

A perma ban seems to be the best solution. BakeryChaz ~ (let's have a chat!) 01:32, August 13, 2012 (UTC)

He's out. Lost Labyrinth • (c) • (b) 13:16, August 13, 2012 (UTC)

Nuking player stories

As some IRC users already know, I contacted Wikia to try and look for an alternative to using bots to delete the Player stories via a batch delete script. Here is Wikia's response:

Wikia does have a few mass deletion extensions, but honestly they are reserved for staff and helper use due to previous abuse and its not really possible to grant those rights locally anyway. I'd be more than happy to run a Nuke script for your wiki if you can provide both the list of pages you wish to have deleted (separated by a new line command [/n]) and then the link to the community agreement to delete all these pages.

In short, we won't be given an extension to do this ourselves but Staff are happy to do it for us provided we give them the discussion where we voted to delete the articles (from the Community Portal) and the list of pages to delete, which can be gathered from both Category:Player stories and from when we list the pages in that category on AutoWikiBrowser. I'd like to know firstly if everyone is okay with this before I say anything to Wikia. Lost Labyrinth • (c) • (b) 18:22, August 13, 2012 (UTC)

It's fine by me. -- LiR ^{speak ~ read} 18:45, August 13, 2012 (UTC)

It's fine by me, too. :) --RoseGui (talk here) 19:04, August 13, 2012 (UTC)

Wikia can go ahead by me. DanPin • talk • contribs19:11, August 13, 2012 (UTC)

I guess that'll do. Nikel _{Talk – Vote!} 01:36, August 14, 2012 (UTC)

Fine with me, although I think it'd not be worth it if we have to write down every page. If we can get them to delete from a category, it'd be okay, otherwise I think getting our bots to do it would be better. ―ฬђ ^talk 01:40, August 14, 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking that myself actually. To copy the names of every page and add newline commands after them is a bit tedious. I know the nuke script can be set to wipe out the contributions of a specific user so I can't see why they can't just nuke everything inside the category. I'm going to give it some time before I reply back to accommodate the whole 1 month agreement but we'll see how it goes nearer to the time. Lost Labyrinth • (c) • (b) 17:42, August 14, 2012 (UTC)

I tracked down and deleted remaining instances of {{Playerstorysub}}, and wrapped the template code with <noniclude></noinclude> . That way, if we ever do decide to re-enable player stories, the code doesn't have to be re-done from scratch. Dharden (talk) 20:33, August 30, 2012 (UTC)

User:TheEditorOfWikia777

I hesitated to bring this up here, given AGF, but I felt if I didn't mention this, this user would likely receive a block before the checkuser I've requested is completed. TheEditorOfWikia777 (talk · contribs · editcount · block · modify rights · logs · block log) made an edit to Maximilian Moore, linking to a Sim uploaded to the TS3 exchange created by User:Corymach7. The fact that he linked to this particular user's creation, and the fact that he inserted it into a canon article (which, after all, was part of Corymach's M.O.) tends to suggest that they are the same person. I assumed good faith by issuing a warning, but I have requested a checkuser and if it comes back positive that they are the same person, I will be issuing a block. I wanted to make you all aware in case you come across this user and their edits. -- LiR ^{speak ~ read} 02:22, August 27, 2012 (UTC)

Checkuser has confirmed that they are the same person, so TheEditorOfWikia has received a permanent block. -- LiR ^{speak ~ read} 18:53, August 27, 2012 (UTC)

Should anyone do the same pattern of action, I think it's safe to assume that it's Corymach again. Good thing it's not "Ladah" anymore. Nikel _{Talk – Vote!} 05:00, August 29, 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, I've written an Abuse Filter set to automatically block an account (and the IP range) if they write "Corymach7" in an edit summary, which this guy did. Whether or not this filter will be beneficial or detrimental is yet to be seen as this filter can easily generate a false positive although I've just changed the conditions so that it will ignore autoconfirmed users. Lost Labyrinth • (c) • (b) 10:51, August 29, 2012 (UTC)

I can tell that W7mach (talk · contribs · editcount · block · modify rights · logs · block log) is Corymach7... okay, anyone can tell. It seems that he patterns his name with a "7," so keep looking on more of his socks. Nikel _{Talk – Vote!} 13:28, September 3, 2012 (UTC)

Okay... except Michaelbachelor. So I suppose his pattern is not definite anyway. Nikel _{Talk – Vote!} 13:36, September 3, 2012 (UTC)

The only evidence to suggest that Michaelbachelor (talk · contribs · editcount · block · modify rights · logs · block log) is Cory lies on his contributions on a self-created wiki, so that can go down as blatant.

I'm not entirely convinced at this time that W7mach (talk · contribs · editcount · block · modify rights · logs · block log) is Cory. While the username might be somewhat similar, it may also be coincidential as usernames can have different meanings and interpretations (another possibility behind it is a play on something, for example - W(indows)7mach(h)). Furthermore, all he's done is ask a curious question about another user's fanon, which doesn't seem like Cory at all and there are no off-TSW contributions to suggest anything. I don't know what everyone else's standpoint is on this but I'd recommend for now that the user is unblocked and we can keep an eye on him. To me, the username alone isn't enough to go on for judging whether or not the user is a sockpuppet, or at least in this particular case... Lost Labyrinth • (c) • (b) 15:19, September 3, 2012 (UTC)

The avatar is also suspicious since it's the same one as Michaelbachelor's image which overwrote Belladonna Cove image. That convinced me, though it's true I didn't have further evidence, but I took this as an anticipation. Unless... anyone else wants to check his behavior pattern first. :/ Nikel _{Talk – Vote!} 15:31, September 3, 2012 (UTC)

Fair point, I guess I overlooked that part. Anyway, that settles the W7mach thingy. If anyone comes across any more socks, just revert, block, ignore and hopefully he'll get bored soon enough. Lost Labyrinth • (c) • (b) 15:42, September 3, 2012 (UTC)

User:Larasboyfriend

Larasboyfriend (talk · contribs · editcount · block · modify rights · logs · block log) has made a number of speculations that several Sims are based on celebrities. While this may not be a big issue, perhaps we could restrict him from doing the same behavior to get TSW:ER to work again. I want to know what others think about this, though. Nikel _{Talk – Vote!} 14:39, September 4, 2012 (UTC)

Can you list some examples please? -- LiR ^{speak ~ read} 15:29, September 4, 2012 (UTC)

Bachelor family, saying Bella is based on Rihanna, Monika Morris, saying she's based on Nicki Minaj, twice, Bella Goth herself, saying she's based on Isabella Swan, Cornelia Goth, saying she looks like Katy Perry witch (wha..?). In the past, he said Matilda Smart resembles Lady Gaga. The only speculation kept until now is Katy Perry, which is real. Even so, he did it twice and Auror undid the edit. He once blanked a page too, for the record, but I'd say it was by accident. Nikel _{Talk – Vote!} 15:40, September 4, 2012 (UTC)

Inserting false information is already something that isn't allowed, so we don't necessarily need an ER for that. If they continue to do it after warning, then blocks are the responsible course of action IMO. I'm not sure how a restriction would be managed in this case, so it seems better to simply follow our usual procedure. -- LiR ^{speak ~ read} 15:46, September 4, 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure. Before, Corymach had been inserting false information too, and received the restrictions. This case isn't worse than that, and I could just assume Larasboyfriend is a little misguided, like simply saying out that a Sim looks like someone in the article. But I don't know, I wouldn't insist on using ER either. Nikel _{Talk – Vote!} 15:55, September 4, 2012 (UTC)

The difference I see is that where Corymach was creating new pages, Larasboyfriend is simply adding it to existing pages. If we were to set up a restriction, we'd have to make it so that they can't add any speculative information to an article, which is already a rule we have. If not that, then we essentially are saying that we won't allow them to edit articles anymore, which is functionally the same as just blocking them. So whereas we could've restricted Corymach from creating speculative articles, it's very hard from what I can tell to restrict speculative edits to articles that exist by using an ER. -- LiR ^{speak ~ read} 16:21, September 4, 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, I guess you made a point there... So I guess we'd just give him a straight warning and block, then. Nikel _{Talk – Vote!} 12:57, September 5, 2012 (UTC)

Activity Update, September 2012

I wanted to take an opportunity to make everyone up-to-date on the status of our wiki and our social media presence. Given my utter failure to maintain an up-to-date weekly report on our status, I hope that I will be able to keep up with a monthly report, and hope that it will suffice. Let's start on our wiki.

Wiki Status

Now, as you probably know, we can no longer check our visitor traffic by Quantcast. However, Wikia does provide an in-depth, if slightly cryptic, set of statistics. It's not exactly what we were looking at before, but as far as I can tell it's the best we can do. Here's how September broke down for us (note that this report is about a day early):

• Total registered (and active) editors in all namespaces - 251 (down 16% from last month)
• Total registered and active editors in the content namespaces - 174 (-13%)
• Number of registered editors that have made more than 5 edits to the content namespaces this month - 72 (-10%)
• Number of registered editors that have made more than 100 edits to the content namespaces this month - 5 (-44%) - Note that this is the lowest number of over-100 editors since December 2009.
• Total number of content namespace articles - 8,241 (+2%)
• Total number of edits to content namespace articles - 3,321 (-33%)

Month-to-month comparison : September 2011 vs September 2012

	September 2011	September 2012	Percent change
Registered & Active Total	252	251	~0%
Registered & Active, Content only	180	174	-3%
Editors to Content, >5	62	72	+16%
Editors to Content, >100	8	5	-38%
Total Content Articles	8,767	8,241	-6%
Total Edits to Content	3,675	3,321	-10%

Feel free to extrapolate from this data whatever you want. You can see all the numbers at Special:WikiStats/main.

Facebook and Twitter

Unfortunately, as far as I can tell Twitter offers no real analytical tools to help us determine how successful we are at getting tweets/retweets or how much or message is being distributed. All I can give is a raw number:

• Number of followers: 587

As far as Facebook, we can go much more in-depth. Unfortunately in this case, much of their analytics is based on a week-to-week change, not monthly.

• Likes: 394 (up 2.87% from 9/22 - 9/29)
• People talking about TSW: 39 (up 69.57% from 9/22 - 9/29)
• Weekly total reach: 724 (Up 140.53% from 9/21 - 9/28)

---

Hopefully I'll be able to keep up on reporting. In the meantime, feel free to discuss this data below. -- LiR ^{speak ~ read} 04:10, September 30, 2012 (UTC)

Reorganizing and restructuring policies

I've hinted at this in previous posts and/or on the IRC channel, but I'm bringing it up formally now.

It's hard to say what is and isn't policy here on TSW. We know that our four principle policy pages are definitely community-defined rules. But what of the other pages; things like TSW:AGF or TSW:MOS? Certainly these are more that mere guidelines... they constitute the core of the structure of the wiki and the principles which it is based on. But AGF and psudeo-policies like it were never directly voted on or consented to by the community - consent for those policies has been more-or-less implied and accepted at large, rather than through specific discussions and votes and the like. I think that this is actually preferable to passing rules through discussions or votes, because the rules like AGF are all the more genuine because they have stood the test of time. We don't have that luxury with many other policies, but I digress...

The point I'm trying to get to is that it's silly to say that we as a wiki only have those policies listed on the 4 official policy pages. Certainly AGF and its kind are in the same sphere, and should be considered policy too. Now this might seem to be a bit radical but I assure you it really isn't. We enforce these rules anyways, even if they aren't considered official, and even if they haven't even necessarily been written down - take for example the rule that The Sims Wiki doesn't allow articles about rumored games. There is no currently-standing policy written out that prohibits it, yet we as a community decided that it is not allowed. That's a policy. And as such, it needs to be written down, so we can point to it and say "This is why you can/cannot do this."

So here's what I'm suggesting. I think we should take the four "official" policy pages and break up the sections into individual pages, then have The Sims Wiki:Policy link to all those pages, as well as pages like AGF, The Sims Wiki:5 pillars, etc. I've been working on a {{Policy}} template for this purpose, and it's set up to serve both as an official policy header and a proposed policy header... the former would apply both to those policies that are voted on before enacting, and those that are de facto policies, like AGF and our Rumored Games policy. Since amending the de jure policies and the rules like AGF would be essentially the same process, I see no harm or difficulty in treating them all the same.

Then it comes to the drafting of new policies. Assuming this idea were carried out, I think there would need to be some common sense when writing policies, on whether or not the thing being written already describes a de facto wiki policy, or whether it's a change to a current mode of operation. This could be accomplished by the posting of a template that essentially stipulates that the rule should be considered as official, but that it is subject to community consent and amendment (though the others are as well).

Why am I bringing all this up, you might wonder. I think having different 'tiers' of policies is a mess and a headache. It's hard to know which rules you're supposed to follow and which ones are just suggestions. It's even worse when we start enforcing rules that aren't even written down. We ought to be clear and specific in our policies and our framework... but that's just my opinion. I'd love to hear yours!

-- LiR speak ~ read 08:30, October 3, 2012 (UTC)

Well, since the unwritten policy on game rumors is that they belong in The Sims game rumors, we might as well go ahead and write that down. As for the rest, I think you've got a good plan. Dharden (talk) 12:27, October 3, 2012 (UTC)

ETA: That could probably cover the policy that games and Packs don't get articles until they're officially announced or it's clear that they will be in the near future. I don't know if that was ever written down, it's just The Way Things Are Done. Dharden (talk) 13:32, October 3, 2012 (UTC)

This might've been a poor choice of words on my part. A Rumored Games policy proposal was written down... what I meant to say is that policies we follow aren't implemented (like that one) or simply don't exist (as we did enforce that policy prior to it being written). -- LiR ^{speak ~ read} 17:04, October 3, 2012 (UTC)

Usually, when this kind of topic is being pointed out, I suddenly forgot examples of the kind of cases... IMO, the rumored games policy is ready to go and be implemented and attached as a sticky notes on The Sims game rumors, unless we need some more points to fill in the flaws or merely improve that policy again.

I kind of concluded that you'd promote some of these guidelines (MOS and AGF) to be official policies, as well as writing down the spoken rules and policies into existence. I say it's a good idea, unless I missed the point here. It's good to break up the policies individually and then list them to the official policies, as otherwise many policies would just be scattered without any clear purpose where they're supposed to be.

This reminds me if I should bring up the speculations around contents... What can and cannot be written down in Sim articles? Do we simply wipe out any speculations at first sight, or keep some that's relevant, noteworthy, or obvious? All this time such speculations are prohibited or wiped out based on opinion. I'd like to know whether we should have standards regarding this, but I guess we currently have other topic to discuss about, so maybe this could go as an addition later. Nikel _{Talk – Vote!} 10:09, October 4, 2012 (UTC)

I think Rumored Games policy proposal is pretty much what's done in practice, except for recognizing that some confirmation might come from EA staff members at EA events, whether in-person or online. Dharden (talk) 11:53, October 4, 2012 (UTC)

Good point Dharden; I'll add a catch-all statement onto it. As for content speculation... that's another thing we could determine a written policy for. Presently we block people for inserting false information but there is no rule as far as I can tell that prohibits that, though obviously it's a practice to try and avoid it. Speculation may not be false information but it's information that can't be readily verified, so I think we have to walk a fine line here. The best solution that comes to my mind right away would be to keep this information on the article, but word it such that it's clear that the information is speculative, as well as providing a link or citation to the evidence for it. -- LiR ^{speak ~ read} 17:47, October 4, 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the idea behind this. It makes it easier to for users to understand what to follow, what rules are what and it would be easier to cite the rules as guidance to a user with this structure as it could avoid potential "tl;dr" situations and such. Lost Labyrinth • (c) • (b) 19:33, October 4, 2012 (UTC)

One question... if we don't have a particular policy, but it's a general one, e.g. deletion policy (I'm not sure if we had one. Did we?) does Wikipedia cover us, or it's a separate policy from Wikia? Nikel _{Talk – Vote!} 14:05, October 10, 2012 (UTC)

Our sort of un-written policy, if you could even call it that, is that deletions that are more than just obvious vandalism/irrelevant content are discussed at Category talk:Candidates for deletion after being flagged. As for Wikipedia policies... we don't adhere to Wikipedia policies directly, but many of our policies are based directly off theirs or are inspired by theirs (see Assume Good Faith, Five Pillars, What Wikipedia is not, etc). Often if there's a gap in our policies to address a certain situation, Wikipedia policy is used as a means to fill in that gap or to determine a good course of action. But Wikipedia policy doesn't carry any official weight as a rule on The Sims Wiki most of the time. - 14:33, October 10, 2012 (UTC)

Activity Update: October 2012

In my attempt to make this monthly update a regular occurrence, here's the observations for October 2012 on our wiki.

Wiki Status

Note: These stats are through October 30th, and do not include October 31st

• Total registered (and active) editors in all namespaces - 218 (down 14% from last month)
• Total registered and active editors in the content namespaces - 162 (-10%)
• Number of registered editors that have made more than 5 edits to the content namespaces this month - 70 (-11%)
• Number of registered editors that have made more than 100 edits to the content namespaces this month - 5 (-16%) - Note that this is the lowest number of over-100 editors since December 2009.
• Total number of content namespace articles - 8,407 (+1%)
• Total number of edits to content namespace articles - 2,990 (-18%)

Month-to-month comparison : October 2011 vs October 2012

	October 2011	October 2012	Percent change
Registered & Active Total	285	218	-24%
Registered & Active, Content only	202	162	-20%
Editors to Content, >5	74	70	-5%
Editors to Content, >100	11	5	-55%
Total Content Articles	9,014	8,407	-7%
Total Edits to Content	5,162	2,990	-42%

You can see all the numbers at Special:WikiStats/main.

Facebook and Twitter

• Number of Twitter followers: 634 (last month: 587 - an increase of 47, or 7.4%)

This past week on our Facebook page looks like this:

• Likes: 450 (up 1.58% from 10/24 - 10/31 - Up from 394 last month, +12.4%)
• People talking about TSW: 31 (down 18.42% from 10/23 - 10/30 - Down from 39 last month, -20.5%)
• Weekly total reach: 608 724 (up 139.37% from 10/22 - 10/29 - Down from 724 last month, -16.0%)

-- LiR ^{speak ~ read} 04:10, September 30, 2012 (UTC)

User:Creeper22

While having done absolutely no contributive edits whatsoever, Creeper22 (talk · contribs · editcount · block · modify rights · logs · block log) has vandalized quite and big amount of articles and made many unrelated to The Sims series one. I have a claim in my talk page that he is also a sock of

• TheCandemn11 (talk · contribs · editcount · block · modify rights · logs · block log),

• Admin22 (talk · contribs · editcount · block · modify rights · logs · block log),

• Wikia22 (talk · contribs · editcount · block · modify rights · logs · block log)

• Other accounts.

​Should a checkuser be requested or should I (or another admin) apply a permanent ban immediately? 19:17, November 3, 2012 (UTC)