Wikia

Community navigation: Community Portal (talk) · Fanon Portal (talk) · Game Guide Portal (talk)
Development Portal (talk) · Admin Portal (talk) · Main Page talk · Forums · Portals · Projects

Archives

Resolved Discussions

Weekly Facebook page stats (old page) Edit

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 StatisticsEdit

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+ Edit

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. ^Talk 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 • stuff • reading 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.

^Talk 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.

^Talk 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:Ssjoe13Edit

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 • stuff • reading 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 • stuff • reading 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)

Smexymamma78Edit

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 • stuff • reading 16:49, July 3, 2012 (UTC)

User:Admin22 Edit

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 • stuff • reading 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 Edit

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 • stuff • reading 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 • stuff • reading 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 • stuff • reading 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 • stuff • reading 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 • stuff • reading 19:13, July 31, 2012 (UTC)

Lock the Player Stories pages?Edit

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.

^Talk22:18, July 25, 2012 (UTC)

Fully agree. (ノಠ益ಠ)ノ彡┻━┻)ǝıuooɯɹɐʇs VOTE! 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 • stuff • reading 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 • stuff • reading 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 • stuff • reading 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 • stuff • reading 21:40, July 26, 2012 (UTC)

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

Editing RestrictionsEdit

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 • stuff • reading 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 • stuff • reading 17:14, July 28, 2012 (UTC)

I like the idea and think it would be very useful to the wiki.

^Talk17:08, 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 • stuff • reading 19:02, July 31, 2012 (UTC)

User:Morris lupin Edit

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 • stuff • reading 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 • stuff • reading 13:16, August 13, 2012 (UTC)

Nuking player stories Edit

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 • stuff • reading 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.

^Talk19:11, 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 • stuff • reading 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:TheEditorOfWikia777Edit

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 • stuff • reading 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 • stuff • reading 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 • stuff • reading 15:42, September 3, 2012 (UTC)

User:LarasboyfriendEdit

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 2012Edit

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 policiesEdit

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 • stuff • reading 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 2012Edit

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 Edit

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)

Sock or no, I think this person has earned a final warning. Dharden (talk) 19:38, November 3, 2012 (UTC)

ETA: I checked TheCadenm11 (talk · contribs · editcount · block · modify rights · logs · block log), and reinstated the block, as the account had apparently become unblocked. Dharden (talk) 19:51, November 3, 2012 (UTC)

ETA2: Final warning has been issued. Still, given the claims of socking, I think a checkuser is appropriate. Dharden (talk) 19:57, November 3, 2012 (UTC)

File licensing vandalEdit

While this is not worth noting and I don't suppose there's a simpler way to deal with this, I guess I'll just document it here anyway. A number of anonymous users (presumably using proxy?) incorrectly insert copyright template to a lot of images in the past weeks, as in [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]. Some people just don't have anything better to do (sigh). Well, just sayin' this issue. If you happen to see this... just revert. Nikel _Talk _– _Vote! 04:17, November 13, 2012 (UTC)

So, the anon was bored and apparently changed target instead. [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19]. Nikel _Talk _– _Vote! 06:05, November 18, 2012 (UTC)

Football spambots Edit

Two users have popped up this evening with the intent of spamming to external sites where one can watch football. Given that both Muroi (talk · contribs · editcount · block · modify rights · logs · block log) and Raju99999 (talk · contribs · editcount · block · modify rights · logs · block log) have not only been the ones to conduct this but also abuse multiple accounts, they've both been permanently blocked. For now all I can recommend is a revert, block and ignore approach to this issue and I'd advise all admins to keep an eye out as/if this progresses. Lost Labyrinth • stuff • reading 20:38, November 24, 2012 (UTC)

Minor update: I've written a new entry for Special:AbuseFilter aimed to combat this and from a test on my IP it seems to be effective. Currently it only targets the forum namespace so here's hoping that's their only target. Lost Labyrinth • stuff • reading 20:48, November 24, 2012 (UTC)

Another attack took place this morning, this time on the blog namespace and using the term "NFL" as opposed to "NCAA". I've upgraded the filter to cover all namespaces and both terms but as they only cover the terms in the page titles, I'm not sure how long it will be if the spammer decides to find another way around. Lost Labyrinth • stuff • reading 11:17, November 25, 2012 (UTC)

Activity Update: November 2012Edit

Note: These stats are through Noveber 29th, and do not include November 30th

Total registered (and active) editors in all namespaces - 232 (up 5% from last month) - First percentage increase since July.
Total registered and active editors in the content namespaces - 171 (+4%) - First percentage increase since July.
Number of registered editors that have made more than 5 edits to the content namespaces this month - 60 (-15%) - Fourth consecutive month of decrease.
Number of registered editors that have made more than 100 edits to the content namespaces this month - 6 (+20%) - First percentage increase since July.
Total number of content namespace articles - 8,545 (+1%) - Third consecutive month of minor (1-3%) increases.
Total number of edits to content namespace articles - 2,972 (-1%) - Fifth consecutive month of decline.

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

	November 2011	November 2012	Percent change
Registered & Active Total	243	232	-5%
Registered & Active, Content only	180	171	-5%
Editors to Content, >5	72	60	-20%
Editors to Content, >100	8	6	-33%
Total Content Articles	9,268	8,545	-8%
Total Edits to Content	4,472	2,972	-50%

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

Facebook and Twitter

Number of Twitter followers: 721. Last month: 634, or a 13.7% increase (previous month was up +7.4%)

This past week on our Facebook page looks like this:

Likes: 501 - Up 2.04% from 11/23 - 11/30. Up from 450 last month, +11.3% (prev. month was up +12.4%)
People talking about TSW: 23 - Up 27.78% for 11/21 - 11/30; down from 31 last month, -25.6% (previous month was -20.5%)
Weekly total reach: 340 - Down 28.27% from 11/17 - 11/24; down significantly from 608 last month, or -44.1% (previous month was -16.0%)

So all-in-all, a mixed bag of results. We've stopped the downward slip in the number of editors, but fewer editors are making significant numbers of edits. And the 232 total editors we're sporting this month is still down significantly from our year's high point in July of 328. -- LiR^{speak ~ read} 00:56, December 1, 2012 (UTC)

Fanon of User:Carman39Edit

I blocked Carman39 (talk · contribs · editcount · block · modify rights · logs · block log) until May 31, 2015 due to the user admitting they are only 10 years old. You'll note that I did not block the user permanently. So the question is, what should be done with this user's fanon? -- LiR^{speak ~ read} 23:00, December 6, 2012 (UTC)

I'm thinking we delete it based on the quality of it being subpar (most is tagged for cleanup as it is) and maybe we could restore it for them in 2015 or something if they ask?

ฬђ ^talk 06:21, December 7, 2012 (UTC)

I'd say we delete the fanon for two reasons: one being that it is of poor quality, and as Wogan said, most of it is tagged for cleanup. The second reason is that another user was blocked earlier this year for being underage. Their fanon was deleted. Another admin did not agree and restored it, only for it to be deleted again. Now, if Carman39's fanon stays, it will be unfair on this other user, as his fanon hasn't been tagged for cleanup. I'd say delete the fanon, then restore it when Carman39 returns, much like the example I provided. AsherÉire I'm a lonely person, so please talk to me... 16:12, December 7, 2012 (UTC)

K, went ahead and deleted his stuff. -- LiR^{speak ~ read} 17:20, December 7, 2012 (UTC)

Activity Update: December 2012Edit

False alarm! Wikia statistics are not updating for some reason (they are only up to December 18) so there's nothing I can really display here. Our Facebook page numbers are all down from last month as well, but I attribute this mostly to the fact that the Facebook like box isn't displaying correctly on the wiki. So all-in-all, I have nothing to report, at least until Wikia stats update. -- LiR^{speak ~ read} 04:25, January 3, 2013 (UTC)

Update

Good news, the stats are updated. Here we go!

Total registered (and active) editors in all namespaces - 257 (up 6% from last month) - Second month of increase.
Total registered and active editors in the content namespaces - 174 - Tied with previous month.
Number of registered editors that have made more than 5 edits to the content namespaces this month - 62 (+3%) - First increase since July 2012.
Number of registered editors that have made more than 100 edits to the content namespaces this month - 7 (+16%) - Second consecutive increase
Total number of content namespace articles - 8,637 (+1.8%) - Fourth consecutive month of minor (1-3%) increases.
Total number of edits to content namespace articles - 3,862 (+26%) - Second month of improvement, first major improvement since June 2012, and the largest single-month percentage increase since October 2011.

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

	December 2011	December 2012	Percent change
Registered & Active Total	266	257	-3.4%
Registered & Active, Content only	174	174	0%
Editors to Content, >5	54	62	+13%
Editors to Content, >100	8	7	-12.5%
Total Content Articles	9,456	8,637	-8.7%
Total Edits to Content	3,886	3,862	-0.6%

Again, Facebook numbers are down due to disconnect with the wiki. I hope we can figure out a solution for it soon. But the wiki numbers we have from December look good, and in some places we even beat last December's figures. Hopefully we can follow through with this success into the new year! - LostInRiverview^{talk ~ blog} 21:01, January 7, 2013 (UTC)

Rosebud22 Edit

Can anyone order a checkuser on Rosebud22? For some reason the 22 suffix leads me to believe Rosebud22 is somehow related to the likes of Creeper22 or Cademn11, especially as Rosebud22 created an article of questionable relevance to the Sims Series, if there is any to be had at all. MILK FOR THE UNYUUFEX, FLAT CHEST FOR THE CUTENESS THRONE, SKULLS FOR THE SKULL PROBES (user talk:Mathetesalexandrou) 00:52, January 9, 2013 (UTC)

Blocked for removing content from pages, I will write a Special:Contact shortly (unless you're willing to...?)

ฬђ ^talk 01:08, January 9, 2013 (UTC)

Seems like RRabbit came in and helped us out there. Case resolved. MILK FOR THE UNYUUFEX, FLAT CHEST FOR THE CUTENESS THRONE, SKULLS FOR THE SKULL PROBES (user talk:Mathetesalexandrou) 03:25, January 9, 2013 (UTC)

Anon user 149.147.23.16Edit

What should we do with 149.147.23.16 (talk · contribs · editcount · block · modify rights · logs · block log)? This user's contributions have been creating a needless page (see here), creating a poor quality fanon ~~Fanon:Carl Moody~~, and vandalizing a user's userpage (see here). The userpage edit used the summary "(anon editing userpage (possible vandalism, AGF))", which may look familiar. Also, in the userpage vandalism, the anon claimed to be 12, which means that they cannot create an account and claim their fanon. I'm minded to delete the fanon and issue a block, but would like a second opinion. Dharden (talk) 15:32, January 15, 2013 (UTC)

I deleted the fanon on the grounds that the anon can't claim it, and issued a warning for the vandalism. Dharden (talk) 15:47, January 15, 2013 (UTC)

I'm inclined to believe that the userpage does belong to the anon although there is no way of actually verifying it (and Wikia won't do a checkuser to compare to an IP), so we can't really be sure of that. I would agree with a block on the basis of the user being underage but as we can't confirm that, I say for now we just keep a watch on the anon and if they act up again then we can just block for vandalism. Lost Labyrinth • stuff • reading 22:41, January 15, 2013 (UTC)

Works for me. Dharden (talk) 23:16, January 15, 2013 (UTC)

New warning templateEdit

As you might be aware, I'm not a fan of our current warning template. Specifically, I think that the template does a poor job of explaining individual 'offenses' because it uses a standard written explanation in all instances. A template that can be modified depending on the situation, and which is overall more versatile, seems like a better solution to me.

So, I decided to create a new warning template, which features variable messages depending on the situation. Messages can be broken up into specific classes:

Vandalism: This message warns against making unconstructive edits to the Wiki. This class has three 'levels' - 1, 2, and 3, with 1 being the least severe and 3 being the most severe. The class and level are noted in the template by adding <vandal#> to the 'type' parameter.
Blanking: This message warns against removing all the information from a page or a section of a page without reason. This class has three 'levels' - 1, 2, and 3, with 1 being the least severe and 3 being the most severe. The class and level are noted in the template by adding <blank#> to the 'type' parameter.
Removing information: This message warns against the removal of valid and relevant information from articles. This class has three 'levels' - 1, 2, and 3, with 1 being the least severe and 3 being the most severe. The class and level are noted in the template by adding <remove#> to the 'type' parameter.
Violation of File Policy/not licensing images: This message warns users to follow the Image and File Policy and to license all files uploaded to the wiki. This class has three 'levels' - 1, 2, and 3, with 1 being the least severe and 3 being the most severe. The class and level are noted in the template by adding <file#> to the 'type' parameter.
Disruptive Behavior: This message warns users not to engage in hostile or distracting behavior, such as name-calling, edit warring, or spamming talk pages. This class has only one level, and is noted in the template by adding <disrupt> to the 'type' parameter.
Sockpuppetry: This message warns users that they are suspected of having multiple accounts. This class has only one level, and is noted in the template by adding <sock> to the 'type' parameter.
Custom: If none of the messages above adequately explains the situation, the administrator can use a custom message. This is achieved by entering <custom> to the type parameter, then adding the custom message to the <custom> parameter. Note that custom messages will not automatically display either the 'information' or 'warning' images used in the other templated messages.

If no information is entered into the <type> parameter, it automatically displays the 'vandal1' message.

In addition, an <other> parameter allows the placement of additional text, underneath the signature line but above the end "boilerplate" text. This could be useful if the administrator wants to use one of the templated responses but wants to include additional information or an additional message to the recipient.

I've tested this template out a little and it appears to be free of bugs. Go ahead and test it out and tell me what you think of it; the template is currently at {{NewWarning}}. -- LostInRiverview^{talk ~ blog} 05:12, March 17, 2013 (UTC)

Looks good. You may want to consider adding the possible TSW:ER inclusion to one of the file warnings in accordance with the Image and file policy but otherwise I'm in support of this change. Lost Labyrinth • stuff • reading 11:30, March 17, 2013 (UTC)

I like it. It might be useful to have the types that have levels default to level 1 if no level is given, so there'll be a message if the level is left out. Dharden (talk) 12:56, March 17, 2013 (UTC)

Will {{tempblock}} be redesigned in conjunction with the warning template? The simple design makes it rather to-the-point, I guess. Nikel _Talk _– _Vote! 14:23, March 17, 2013 (UTC)

I think having levels would make things easier, because it will make it easier to show how serious their actions were, as well as the suggested template specifying more clearly what they've done, rather than a template with a brief explaination, I like it. AsherÉire I'm a lonely person, so please talk to me... 14:33, March 17, 2013 (UTC)

@Lost Labyrinth, I can incorporate that into the template, probably as part of the level 2 warning. Do you think I should make reference to ER in all the warning 'classes' or just the File/Image ones?

@Dharden, that's a good idea. I shall implement that shortly.

@Nikel23, I wouldn't be opposed to making changes to Tempblock either. I started with changes to the Warning template because, in my opinion, the template needs a lot more help than Tempblock does. If anything else, we can make the changes to Warning then wait and see how they turn out, then bring forward a change to Tempblock later.

@Everyone, thanks for weighing in so far! Since the reaction to the idea seems pretty positive, I think we might want to start moving towards implementation. Since this new template is a fundamental change to the {{Warning}} template, it might be necessary to inform all admins of the change, if and when we choose to change it. This is because the parameters needed for the template to work will have changed. Since both the current and revised warning templates should be substituted, it might be worth leaving the Warning template as-is for now, while simultaneously starting to use the new warning template. But we could just as well throw out the old warning template and move the new one in without much of a transitional period. Thoughts? -- LostInRiverview^{talk ~ blog} 22:35, March 17, 2013 (UTC)

I'd say ER should be fine only in the file classes as it's mainly for good faith users who are doing things wrong, anyone warned for vandalism can just be dealt with straight away. Oh and as a minor note I checked earlier to ensure that all current warning templates are substituted so that we don't have to cleanup a load of code later on. Lost Labyrinth • stuff • reading 22:40, March 17, 2013 (UTC)

The changes suggested above have been implemented. A slight issue on the matter of substitution, by the way. Presently, {{NewWarning}} probably shouldn't be substituted onto a page, as it leaves all the {{#ifeq:}} functions visible in the wiki code, even if the functions themselves aren't being used. The result is a long string of wiki code that might confuse many users. If there is a way to strip the template of this code when it transcludes over, that would be best. Generally speaking templates for user talk pages should always be set to substitute, but with this template set up as it is presently, doing that would not be practical. -- LostInRiverview^{talk ~ blog} 23:06, March 17, 2013 (UTC)

I was referring to the substitution of what currently sits in {{Warning}}. Fortunately they all were properly substituted anyway but leaving it as just {{Warning|whatever}} would cause numerous issues later on. I can see the technical limitations with the new template, I was just executing a pre-emptive measure on the current, unmodified template to save hassle later. Lost Labyrinth • stuff • reading 23:17, March 17, 2013 (UTC)

Good thing there aren't too many pages which use Warning templates that aren't substituted, so it's not gonna be a big deal of work to substituted.

I see the template leaves its codes when substituted too. I have an idea though. What if use a template for this template, that stores the contents/comments/"Please note...", while the rest of the code (like the box) stays in this NewWarning template? So when NewWarning is substituted, it will not leave the entire ifeqs behind. We've had many infoboxes that implement this method. Take a look at {{NeighborhoodInfobox}} for example, that uses {{GetGameIcon}} template in the game1 parameter. This is to let the infobox gets an icon from GetGameIcon without having to include the entire options in the code, if the infobox is substituted. Nikel _Talk _– _Vote! 09:18, March 18, 2013 (UTC)

ETA: Just changed some things a bit. So far, the leftover I see is the usage of a template to my subpage, as seen in the Sandbox. Nikel _Talk _– _Vote! 09:43, March 18, 2013 (UTC)

I can't seem to get the "custom" type to work. The template accepts "custom" as a type, but trying to enter "custom =" just shows {{{custom}}} . Dharden (talk) 12:57, March 21, 2013 (UTC)

(Reset indent) The template should be fixed now. -- LostInRiverview^{talk ~ blog} 15:25, March 21, 2013 (UTC)

It seems to be. Dharden (talk) 15:32, March 21, 2013 (UTC)

Mid-April 2013 Activity Update Edit

This hasn't been jotted down for a few months so I'll just make a small dump of whatever changes have occurred since December 2012, with percentage differences from the previous month.

	January 2013	February 2013	March 2013	April 2013
Registered & Active Total	248 (-3%)	225 (-9%)	227 (0%)	115 (-31%)
Registered & Active, Content only	167 (-4%)	151 (-9%)	149 (-1%)	108 (-27%)
Editors to Content, >5	72 (16%)	61 (-15%)	62 (1%)	47 (-24%)
Editors to Content, >100	8 (14%)	7 (-12%)	11 (57%)	5 (-54%)
Total Content Articles	8,774 (1%)	8,915 (1%)	9,078 (1%)	9,037 (0%)
Total Edits to Content	3,662 (-5%)	3,897 (6%)	4,650 (19%)	2,420 (-47%)

April's figures are, obviously, partial given the fluctuating values so I won't draw too much attention to that for now. December to February does show a small percentage drop across the board but things do look mostly positive for March with more edits being made to articles despite a small 1% drop in our active userbase. Hopefully we can replicate and expand on our March success throughout the rest of this month and beyond. Lost Labyrinth • stuff • reading 19:06, April 14, 2013 (UTC)

April 2013 Activity UpdateEdit

I've decided to ~~steal~~ re-appropriate Lost Labyrinth's statistics, now that the month of April has concluded. Here you go:

	January 2013	February 2013	March 2013	April 2013
Registered & Active Total	248 (-3%)	225 (-9%)	227 (0%)	254 (11%)
Registered & Active, Content only	167 (-4%)	151 (-9%)	149 (-1%)	175 (17%)
Editors to Content, >5	72 (16%)	61 (-15%)	62 (1%)	74 (19%)
Editors to Content, >100	8 (14%)	7 (-12%)	11 (57%)	10 (-9%)
Total Content Articles	8,774 (1%)	8,915 (1%)	9,078 (1%)	9,102 (0%)
Total Edits to Content	3,662 (-5%)	3,897 (6%)	4,650 (19%)	4,681 (0%)
WAM Score (last day of month)	98.63	98.81 ( 0.18)	98.44 ( 0.37)	98.49 ( 0.05)
WAM Ranking (cross-Wikia, last day of month)	61	51 ( 10)	65 ( 14)	69 ( 4)

As you can see, April was a good month for The Sims Wiki, especially if you look at our 'Registered and Active' and 'Editors to Content >5' categories. Our 9% loss in Editors >100 is a bit misleading, since a 9% drop for us translates to one editor fewer, meaning that in April we had 10 editors on The Sims Wiki who edited 100 or more content pages (we tend to average less than this, judging by our statistics). Total content articles remains steady with slight increases - under a percentage point, so it's recorded in stats as a non-gain. Total edits to content were on par with those in March, which is good news since March's totals were the highest since last August.

The newest bit of information on that chart is the Wiki Activity Monitor, or WAM, Score. This is a new feature being rolled-out by Wikia, which uses (secret) algorithms to calculate strong community activity on a particular wiki. A rating of 98.49 is good enough to place The Sims Wiki in 69th place overall - that's 69th out of literally tens of thousands of wikis! You can read more about the WAM on this page.

So overall, things are looking pretty good for us. Let's keep on doing just what we're doing, and keep our eyes open for opportunities to build our editor base. We've had a lot of interaction with the community via Facebook and Twitter, which I hope has helped us bolster participation somewhat. Hopefully we can keep this going into May and beyond. -- LostInRiverview^{talk ~ blog} 01:36, May 1, 2013 (UTC)

Edit: I'm also going to include the customary comparison between this year and last year, as before. Note that this table does not include WAM Scores as that feature did not exist in April of 2012

Month-to-month comparison : April 2012 vs April 2013

	April 2012	April 2013	Percent change
Registered & Active Total	254	254	0%
Registered & Active, Content only	186	175	-5.9%
Editors to Content, >5	74	74	0%
Editors to Content, >100	7	10	42.9%
Total Content Articles	10,482	9,102	-13.2%
Total Edits to Content	4,169	4,681	12.3%

-- LostInRiverview^{talk ~ blog} 01:47, May 1, 2013 (UTC)

Should Profanity filter block violating users?Edit

Currently we have an Abusefilter filter that is intended to block the addition of profanity to the wiki (otherwise known as Filter 5). According to wiki policy, addition of profanity is against the rules and is punishable by blocking, a policy which the administrators did not neglect to enforce prior to Abusefilter being activated here. So it seems to me only a logical extension of this policy, that users tripping the profanity abuse filter should receive blocks as well.

There are a couple reasons why I think this should be done. Firstly, putting in place any rule, or in this case an abuse filter, is just asking for someone to come along and try to subvert the rule. Our profanity filter only limits certain words, entered in certain ways. A user could still add profanity to a page, simply because the filter cannot prevent all circumstances. By blocking the user when they try to add the "obvious" profane words, we prevent them from finding a way around the filter and discourage them from trying to do so.

The addition of profanity itself cannot be construed to be a good-faith edit, especially since none of the words that the profanity filter currently limits can really be used in a non-explicit scenario. I of course cannot list the words since doing so would trip the filter, but trust me when I say that they have no place anywhere in our wiki. Simply trying to add a profane word or words in the first place shows the user's intent not to edit in good faith, and that seems to me like a good reason to block them.

As for the length of the block, I'd suggest a day-long block. This isn't an administrator-triggered block so I wouldn't be comfortable with one lasting longer than that.

Any thoughts? -- LostInRiverview^{talk ~ blog} 04:54, May 1, 2013 (UTC)

Interesting thought, I think a block would be reasonable. One day seems fair to me. If we do this we'll need to keep an eye on the block log however as the filter has been known to get false positives occasionally.

ฬђ ^talk 09:34, May 1, 2013 (UTC)

Seeing that profanity seems to not reflect good-faith edit at all, giving a block may be legitimate. I don't know, however, if they deserve a one-day block for one (unless it's more) profane edit, because it's happened quite often, and we don't seem to always block whenever there's one. If warning doesn't help, maybe at least we give them one-hour block or longer, and the duration increases if they persist doing so. Is it possible? Nikel _Talk _– _Vote! 11:35, May 1, 2013 (UTC)

On a technical perspective, the abusefilter would automatically block a user permanently if we used the automated block setting, which is why we only really use this for prolific long-term abusers and mass spammers. Either way an admin would have to manually remove a block after 1 day, if we went the automated route, or check Special:AbuseLog for offenders.

I can see the argument for doing this though I feel the idea of a filter is to ease administrative workload. At the moment I'm in the middle with this on technical grounds, leaning towards support. Lost Labyrinth • stuff • reading 11:19, May 2, 2013 (UTC)

Wow, I was not aware that abusefilter blocks were automatically permanent; I can't say I really support perma-blocking on the first offense. Also, I think having it set so that an admin needs to check the logs constantly just puts more work on them, which does run contrary to Lost Lab's statement that the abusefilter is meant to lighten the load. So, funny as it may sound, I no longer support my idea. -- LostInRiverview^{talk ~ blog} 13:42, May 2, 2013 (UTC)