SmashWiki talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 1

From SmashWiki, the Super Smash Bros. wiki

I'm wondering about something. Should we have a dedicated section on the admin noticeboard for vandal reporting? Such as a section entitled "Vandel postings" or something. It would help the page look smaller and neater. Toomai Glittershine eXemplary Logic 18:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Cleaning the vandal reports

Do we get rid of vandal reports that have a result?--MegaTron1XD:p 06:28, July 24, 2010 (UTC)

An admin comes on here and cleans it up every once in a while. Doctor Pain 99 (CTE) Dp99.png 16:21, July 24, 2010 (UTC)


I'm pretty confused right now,so if this the wrong place to talk about this,forgive me. Anyway,I was looking at the recent changes when I noticed a new user page for a user called DianneDale. Upon reading it,however,I found that it was just seemingly incomprehensible babble about online poker. Could someone please check it out,because it seems like spam or something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BlindColours (talkcontribs) 14:08, 17 June 2011 (EDT)

Random user page content that does not rlate to the Wiki. Just about anything can be put on user pages, so it does not have to be checked out. Btw, sign your posts using ~~~~. MegaTron1XD:p 17:56, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
Just because it's on a userpage does not mean spam is allowed. Omega Tyrant TyranitarMS.png 18:52, 17 June 2011 (EDT)

Adding a "name change request" section

Having name change requests get funnelled onto my talk page is getting a bit off-topic, in a way; it's not like I'm the only one who can take care of them. I think we should put a "Name change requests" section on here, saying something like "Ask for name changes here, you'll be given a few days to make sure you don't change your mind, do not change your name with any regularity". Toomai Glittershine ??? The Xanthic 18:51, 12 June 2012 (EDT)

I have nothing more to add, other than that I agree. Toast Wii U Logo Transparent.pngltimatumTransparent Swadloon.png 18:54, 12 June 2012 (EDT)
Or we can just create a SmashWiki:Renaming Users page like they do in MarioWiki.--Bandit 19:12, 12 June 2012 (EDT)
I don't think it should be a big enough deal to require its own page. Having a section on the Noticeboard should be sufficient. DoctorPain99 {ROLLBACKER} 22:44, 12 June 2012 (EDT)

Before we put anything up, we should come to some kind of agreement on what/when constitutes and appropriate name change. Obviously, I have no problem with the two I did today, but, I don't want to see people changing names whenever they feel like it. Honestly, I would say that unless it is a case like today (where the users were still easily referenced by their new usernames) people should have to make a request in a similar form to the RfA process (i.e. they should have to provide reasons as to why we should change their names). I'm not look for a wiki of a bunch of "User's formerly known as Prince." Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 22:52, 12 June 2012 (EDT)

Maybe we can have a set a requirements: for example, you have to be an established editor to have a name change and you only get one. DoctorPain99 {ROLLBACKER} 22:57, 12 June 2012 (EDT)
I don't think we need hard requirements, as it is really a case-by-case basis. Mr. AnonAnon.pngtalk 23:25, 12 June 2012 (EDT)
It actually isn't a case-by-case basis because there's only ever one reason that user names are changed in this context and that's solely because the user feels like it. It's not like adminship that doesn't have hard requirements because every case is different and different things need to be evaluated. DoctorPain99 {ROLLBACKER} 00:00, 13 June 2012 (EDT)
I think restricting name changes to experienced users only defeats the point a little. I've been plagued with a bad username on other wikis and websites before, and I wouldn't edit or use them until I got a name change. (The reasons I had this username in the first place go back a way, not relevent.) Simply preventing a user from going through this process is very limiting, and stops potential new editors, if they have the same case as I did. And what if they had a spelling error in their name, why should they wait until they've got 300 edits to get that fixed? Toast Wii U Logo Transparent.pngltimatumTransparent Swadloon.png 02:40, 13 June 2012 (EDT)
Responding to pretty much everyone at once: I would be in favor of formalizing the system by creating a new section on the Administrators' noticeboard, but I wouldn't go so far as to say it needs its own page, because that could encourage it, whereas all we want to do is streamline it. Speaking of which, I would actually discourage it by introducing a system that states you need something like 250 mainspace/SmashWiki/Template/etc. edits, to show you're an established member of the community, so that people can't just pitch up, choose a name, and then decide four minutes later that they want to change it. The required reasonable number of edits would also give the user both incentive to constructively edit the wiki, and time to reconsider, so that either they decide against the name change, or they have time to think of a really good name that they will then stick with permanently. If the name change is as trivial as a spelling error, or if the name looks objectively awful on reflection (I've seen people try using names that end "ape" only to realize that it reads as "rape", for example), or if the name is against wiki policy on usernames, then the system should allow those nicks to be changed without the required edits. I just don't want to see changing your username become the new cool thing to do, and I think enforcing restrictions on it would keep that to a minimum. PenguinofDeath 04:26, 13 June 2012 (EDT)
That sounds fair, I'll go in favour. Toast Wii U Logo Transparent.pngltimatumTransparent Swadloon.png 08:06, 13 June 2012 (EDT)
I was basically thinking of something along those lines, and that sounds good. I still believe there's no reason to do more than one user name change per user sans the exceptions PoD mentioned, but if that doesn't become a restriction, I don't think that will be the end of the world. DoctorPain99 {ROLLBACKER} 10:47, 13 June 2012 (EDT)

Here's a basic ruleset I was thinking of for the new section:

  • All change requests are decided on a case-by-case basis. There are many factors not included below that can influence a name change request.
  • Name changes are not to be taken lightly. Be sure you want to commit to your new username before you post a request, and know that even then it will be given a delay of a few days should you wish to retract it. Trying to change one's name a second time without a year or two between is unlikely to fly.
  • Make changes as small as possible. A significant name change will inconveniance the rest of the wiki as other users adapt to your new name, while a minor change is much easier to deal with.
  • Name changes are a privilege. While spelling fixes or unfortunate acronyms have slightly more leeway, users are generally expected to stick with the username they signed up with for their wiki career.

Needs a bit of hammering but seems a good start. Toomai Glittershine ??? The Producer 23:59, 15 June 2012 (EDT)

A request

Don't archive a noticeboard until all the vandals/spams on it have been taken care of. Went over a few of the non-blocked vandals in the archive, I can guarantee at least one of them will return. I don't want any of them, so please consider.Qwerty the lord Nessytrewq.jpg 00:03, 26 June 2014 (EDT)

If you have reason to believe acting on a stale vandal report would be helpful, then be more specific. Otherwise we'll let bygones be bygones; there's no real use blocking someone who's never returned since. Toomai Glittershine ??? The Incomprehensible 00:43, 26 June 2014 (EDT)
After a year or so of their vandal edits, someone out there will think, "Hey, you know what I haven't done in a while? Vandalism." Then they go to Smashwiki and "Vhat is dis hax? I'm not even blocked!"
User specific: Sdkerr. He's from wikia.Qwerty the lord Nessytrewq.jpg 00:14, 29 June 2014 (EDT)
If a vandal comes back, then we block them then. If they don't, then whatever. being extremely paranoid when most vandals aren't capable of causing extremely significant damage isn't the best thing to do. MegaTron1XDDecepticon.png 00:26, 29 June 2014 (EDT)


What do people think of the idea of protecting the noticeboard so it can only be edited by autoconfirmed users? I'm hesitating because I would like new users with legitimate reasons for wanting to get an admin's attention to be able to, but this page seems to be a vandalism magnet as well. Miles (talk) 13:42, 20 October 2015 (EDT)

That would be an excellent idea Miles. INoMedssig.png INoMed (Talk • Contribs) 13:45, 20 October 2015 (EDT)
Only problem: Well-intentioned new users and IPs. They'll be left out. INoMedssig.png INoMed (Talk • Contribs) 13:49, 20 October 2015 (EDT)
Strong Support ZeldaStarfoxfan2164 (talk) is a never lover boy 13:47, 20 October 2015 (EDT)
Weak oppose per INoMed's second point. Nyargleblargle (Talk · Contribs) 13:52, 20 October 2015 (EDT)
Support. Tired of having to deal with this crap. SerpentKing (talk) 14:07, 20 October 2015 (EDT)
Also, I feel like, if something were to happen (such as vandalism), other older users would catch it, or at the very least, the newer users could find someone who can the admin board. SerpentKing (talk) 14:16, 20 October 2015 (EDT)