Welcome to The Sims Wiki
Tumblr static plumbob sims4
Welcome to The Sims Wiki Themasterofdenial! Thanks for your contributions to the The Sims Wiki:Battles page! There's a lot to do around here, so I hope you'll stay with us and help us improve the wiki!
Recent changes is a great first stop, because you can see what pages other people have been editing, and where you can help.
Questions? You can ask at the Help desk or on the "discussion" page associated with each article, leave a message with an administrator or post a message on my talk page!
Need help? The Community Portal has an outline of the site, and pages to help you learn how to edit. You may also try asking for help on the IRC channel, where some users may be able to help you!
Want someone to guide you along the way? Check out our user adoption program which is designed to help out new and possibly inexperienced users like yourself.
Spotted some vandalism? We have a team of administrators who will happily deal with vandalism when they see it. If you have found some vandalism from a user who hasn't been sanctioned, you can help by reporting it!
Please sign in every time you edit, so that we can recognize you!
Want to get noticed in the community? Well, we have tons of opportunities for you! The Forums are a great place for The Sims and The Sims Wiki related questions and games! Not your style? How about a chatroom with your fellow contributors? Have some fun on the IRC channel or on-wiki chat feature! We are also the host to a variety of community created contests. Want to suggest a change for the wiki? Feel free to ask on the community discussions forum! So, what are you waiting for? Get out there and have fun!
I'm really happy to have you here, and I look forward to contributing with you! Dharden (talk) 07:36, August 15, 2016 (UTC)

Necrobumping old messagesEdit

It's unnecessary to partake ancient discussions or revive ancient comments, because it would be either resolved already, dead, or irrelevant. In this case, it's all of them. The message you revived hadn't been paid attention to in over two years. Also forgive me if I'm sounding a bit blunt here but you revived a message that didn't concern you. What's in the past is in the past. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 07:52, August 15, 2016 (UTC)


You are Blocked
Reason for Block: Intimidating behaviour/harassment. Carrying drama from other wikis.

Block Length: 1 day
Issuing administrator: ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 08:09, August 15, 2016 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing The Sims wiki for the reason(s) stated above. Repeating this behavior, or breaking other wiki policies may result in additional, longer-lasting blocks or other actions against your account and/or your IP address.

Please note that you may be allowed to request that this block be removed. Please see this page for details.

For more information about wiki blocks, please go here.

lol Themasterofdenial (talk) 06:52, September 8, 2016 (UTC)

RE: Unfair BlockEdit


To be fair, this wiki does have a system in place that allows users to appeal blocks. Our blocking policy page has a section titled "Unblocking" which details how this process is handled. In general, if this can be done, this appeal process should be followed first. Unfortunately, when I drafted this system, I tried to make it policy that the blocking administrator should not be allowed to review unblock requests for blocks they have made, but the community rejected that. However, it could potentially give other admins the opportunity to look at the block as well. Also, all blocks are listed at Special:Log/block, so technically I was aware of the block, but didn't know enough details about it (And I was busy at the time anyway). In fact, all on-wiki processes are made in plain sight of everyone, so any action an admin takes is visible and reversible by another admin already.

In practice, you may leave a message on the blocking admin's message wall at Community Central wiki to ask about a block, as described here. However, if the blocking admin rejects it, I would suggest instead looking for a second opinion; you may try to contact another admin privately. However, try not to be disruptive about doing so; our guide to appealing blocks has more on that.

In short, I do not know enough about the reasoning behind the block in order to make a definite judgement; I was not in our Wikia chatroom or the Community Central chat to know what happened exactly. However, I would say that, if the behavior was limited to chat, I would say a block is much too harsh and a ban from chat would've been more appropriate instead. That being said, reviving an old discussion generally isn't appreciated, and if someone reverts your edit it is better to discuss it with them rather than have a revert war.

k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 10:53, August 16, 2016 (UTC)

Hi, K6ka.

Thank you for your quick and timely response.

At the time the block was made, I was not aware of the system this wiki has in appealing for blocks. However, although this system is very well thought out, I think we have to have a system that makes sure that unfair blocks should not be made in the first place.

Wikia is like a community and we can compare it to things that really happen in our world. Blocks are like imprisonments, where it is difficult and sometimes impossible for the imprisoned party to speak up for themselves. No innocent person should ever have to face this. No innocent person should be silenced.

We can also see how our world applies to Wikia in health care. Primary health care is preventing a disease from having an opportunity to appear, secondary health care is managing the early symptoms and tertiary health care is treating the disease once it arises.

Right now we have a tertiary health care system. Blocks can only be fixed and dealt with after they occur. There is no method of actually preventing unfair blocks.

I believe that we desperately need a system where admins must have their major actions approved by other admins before they are performed. This may be slower, but it will also be more just.

Furthermore, I also believe that this situation with CSyde banning me should be investigated. We cannot let injustice slide.


Themasterofdenial (talk) 11:09, August 16, 2016 (UTC)

Nothing happened on chat that could have led to a ban.

Themasterofdenial (talk) 11:15, August 16, 2016 (UTC)

Is BestBrony789 your sockpuppet account? I highly discourage using alternate accounts, especially if they're used to evade blocks. They usually hurt your chances of getting unblocked or getting anyone to come to your aid. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 11:17, August 16, 2016 (UTC)
Blocks are not supposed to be issued as a punishment. They are issued to prevent further disruption. And you already had a prior record of misbehaviour on the Community Central Chat, which Chat Moderators there are able to access by digging through the past logs. And you were already banned from using chat there because of the many times you harassed and annoyed others there, and played the victim game, whenever the chat moderators told you to follow their guidelines.
It also struck me how you expected people to be tolerant of you when you wore out their tolerance. The way you went round annoying other users even after you thought that they harboured a grudge - which wasn't actually not true in my case - literally said that you liked putting up acts as a cry for attention. Your actions now and in the past demonstrated that you couldn't be mature, and had added "Annoy C.Syde65" on your schedule every time you got the chance when you saw me to be a bother.
You may not have had any malicious intent, and I normally wouldn't have done what I did, but given your refusal to follow the advice that I gave you here, on top of the things that you did on the Community Central Chat, I felt that under this particular circumstance, a block was the only thing that was going to make you understand the consequences of doing things against your better judgement.
I felt that trying to show you reason at this point would just encourage you to do more things that were inappreciable. I'm sorry for not formally warning you before blocking you, but the truth is I am getting really frustrated with your behaviour, and I can say the exact same thing about other users. I have spoken to a couple of users both privately and publicly the other day, and knowing your habits, they felt that I was actually quite right to handle the situation the way I did.
I strongly advise you to be more careful both inside chat, and out. And on not just the Community Central Wiki, but on other wikis, to prevent such a thing from happening to you in future. I hope you will realise that I do not, nor have I ever harboured a grudge against you. If you genuinely thought that what I did was not right, then I am sorry if I judged the situation too harshly. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 11:38, August 16, 2016 (UTC)
Alright, first of all, let me break down your argument. Your first two paragraphs are about my behaviour on the Community Central Chat. Your next two are about why you blocked me and your last one is an apology, conclusion and a piece of advice.
Now that we know that, I can move onto my rebuttal.
You say that blocks are not meant to be issued as punishment, and are just meant for preventing disruption. This is most definitely untrue. I have heard numerous reports of users being blocked for their past conduct, even though they claim that they have changed. Blocks are meant for punishment. I'm sure Wikia has a page about blocks that can testify to this. And if they are meant for preventing disruption, then you issued it incorrectly, as I did not disturb the wiki. I just revived a thread. That is it.
Now, about your description of my behaviour on Community Central. I was only banned for spamming. You can check the ban logs to verify this. My "harassment" was non-existent, my "annoying others" was not worthy of a ban and my "playing the victim game" never occurred either.
A lot of the things you say about my behaviour in Community Central are simply untrue. There is no other way to describe it.
Why do I say you are harbouring a grudge? Because you said so. You said that you only acted harshly because you found me annoying. (Evidence). You were banned from Community Central Chat because you overreacted when I did something.
In your next two paragraphs, you describe your reasons for blocking. You say that I refused to follow advice. I did not. I simply restored the thread. I acknowledge k6ka's suggestion (that I should have contacted you), but that is not refusing to follow advice. You also say that you blocked me because you wanted me to understand consequences. Doesn't that sound unjust? You don't go around imprisoning people to show them how they shouldn't steal.
You also say that you contacted users to verify that a block was okay. What users did you contact? Did you contact other admins? Or did you just contact random users on Community Central and on the Sims Wiki? Knowing your past behaviour, you probably did the latter. This is not the same as collaborating with other admins. It's not the same as building a punishment system on collaboration. It is equivalent to deciding whether someone should be imprisoned or not by conducting a random survey or asking the wise man who lives down the street. 
You also say that showing reason would encourage me to display bad behaviour. This is wrong. If you had shown reason, contacted me and explained why reviving old threads is wrong and then if I had continued to do it, your block would be justified. But neither of these things happened. You were not in the right.
Themasterofdenial (talk) 12:10, August 16, 2016 (UTC)
Themasterofdenial, my name is LostInRiverview, another bureaucrat here on TSW. I want to first and foremost apologize to you about the way that this situation has escalated. It is always troubling to me when disagreements between users ends in blocks, especially when said disagreements are with administrators. I also accept that you feel as though you are a victim in all of this.
I have to be careful, as I'm sure you understand, not to jump to conclusions or reach any snap judgments against you, C.Syde, or anyone else, especially since I am not fully aware of the back history between the two of you or the specific circumstances that led to the block being issued. Additionally, I need to be careful to assume that you both acted in good faith unless there is evidence to the contrary. So, if in my response to this discussion it seems like I'm being noncommittal or appear to be forgiving of C.Syde's actions, please understand that it's not because I agree with him over you, but because I don't want to prematurely pass judgment against him, just as you say he has done against you.
As you may now know, this wiki doesn't have many official rules, or even well-established practices, regarding when and under what circumstances an administrator may issue a block. Admins are empowered to act swiftly to curtail disruption on the wiki, but very little is done in an official capacity to define what disruption is and to what lengths admins may act in order to curtail it. There is no rule against admins blocking users on TSW for actions that took place elsewhere, prohibiting an admin from using past actions as a justification for extended blocks, or even for admins denying user appeals of their blocks.
Speaking specifically to the last point, the unblocking system was set up so that in the event an admin denies a block appeal, another administrator is free to override their decision. The present situation though demonstrates that this approach is flawed; if I had been aware of the block earlier I may have believed that it was unfair or unnecessary, but then I would be forced to directly oppose C.Syde, another administrator, in order to lift the block, thus undermining his authority, or possibly starting a dispute between him and myself. Even if I had felt that the block was unjustified and the appeal was valid, I probably wouldn't have lifted it simply out of deference to another administrator. Then again, you could also argue that the appeal process itself is stacked against the blocked user, since any administrator choosing to lift a block is in effect disagreeing with the administrator that put the block into place. I don't have an easy solution to this problem, but it seems to me apparent that, at the very least and until a better system can be devised, appeals should not be handled by the administrator that issued the initial block (unless the issuing administrator chooses to lift the block).
I have always been apprehensive of issuing blocks on TSW over incidents that have occurred off-wiki or on other wikis. My feeling has been that blocks on TSW should be limited strictly to behavior on TSW itself, in TSW's chat, and (to a limited extent) on the IRC Channel. However, there is again no rule prohibiting a local admin from blocking a user based partially on behavior exhibited elsewhere.
This incident demonstrates that we as a community still have a ways to go in clarifying what our blocking system is meant to be; that is, a system that is used as a last resort to disrupt those who come here explicitly to cause damage. In my opinion, simply "causing a disruption" isn't in and of itself worthy of warning or block, since one person's "disruption" can be another person's "passionate disagreement." It seems that too often, admins resort to issuing blocks out of frustration with users rather than for any specific bad faith action. And while we can claim that blocks are not intended to serve as punishment, they are often issued as such out of anger and frustration. I know this from experience, as it's very tempting to issue a block against users who are just being difficult in the way that they question the status quo and challenge the standards of the community. But while these actions might be classified as disruptive, I don't believe that they are inherently harmful and shouldn't be met with blocks or warnings.
In this specific case, I am afraid I have no remedy for any injustice you feel you have suffered. The block has already expired, and I am not prepared to demote C.Syde (as for one, I am not empowered under policy to unilaterally demote an administrator, and for two I do not believe that he acted deliberately in bad faith), nor am I ready to sit in judgment against him or his actions. I feel that the only way to move forward from this situation is to put safeguards in place through policy, but this will require further community discussion. When such a thread is started, I would encourage you to participate and help us create a better system for handling blocks and for remedying these types of dilemmas in the future.
-- LiR talkblogcontribs 00:18, August 17, 2016 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard alertEdit

Info information icon
There is currently a discussion at the administrators' noticeboard regarding an incident in which you may have been involved. Thank you. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 19:50, March 6, 2017 (UTC)

Editing restrictionEdit

Please note that due to ongoing issues between you and C.Syde65, you have been placed under editing restrictions for thirty days. The conditions of the restriction are:

  1. You should refrain from harassing C.Syde65 or any user on The Sims Wiki, whether it be on-wiki or on Wikia Chat.
  2. You may communicate with C.Syde65 iff there is a legitimate reason to do so.

You are also urged to steer clear of C.Syde65 outside of The Sims Wiki and avoid conflict with each other.

Please note that this editing restriction is not meant to be punitive, but is merely intended to correct behavior that distracts and detracts from the wiki experience for you, C.Syde65, and others. At this time, no other actions are being taken against either you or C.Syde65 and, as long as you abide by the expectations established in the editing restriction, there should be no need for any further actions going forward.

If you have any concerns or questions about this decision, please contact me or another administrator for assistance. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 16:57, March 13, 2017 (UTC)

You may remove this notice once you have read it and understood its meaning.
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.