SmashWiki talk:Username policy/Archive 1
We pretty much enforce this stuff already, so this simply puts it in written form and makes it easier to deal with any potential new users with inappropriate usernames.
Regarding the similar names issue, see my argument here. If you're going to oppose the implementation of this policy on the basis that similar names should be freely allowed, refute the argument I have there.
- Support Nothing wrong with it really. Awesome Cardinal 2000 21:16, 11 September 2013 (EDT)
- Support So we don't get confused with other usernames overall. Dots The Saxaphone 21:19, 11 September 2013 (EDT)
- Support. Codifying some reasonable common sense stuff; no problem here. Miles (talk) 21:36, 11 September 2013 (EDT)
- Support A solution to a somewhat uncommon yet serious problem. I support it. Washi 23:27, 11 September 2013 (EDT)
- Support I want clear rules if someone registers as RoyboyZ. RoyboyX Talk 22:03, 11 September 2013 (EDT)
- I should clarify that I oppose outright bans for people with similar usernames. "Thesmashball" isn't that similar to SmashBall104. RoyboyX Talk 22:28, 11 September 2013 (EDT)
- The ban isn't a real ban at all; they change their name and the ban is immediately lifted. If you don't use bans you can't enforce it. Also, did you read what I said at all in the argument?
- "Also, "Thesmashball"'s name here isn't merely "similar", it's nearly identical, with the only technical difference being the existing user having some random numbers after his name, and this user having "The" before their name. Their usernames are essentially the same, and I actually confused "Thesmashball" for the other SmashBall at first; such confusion shouldn't be happening at all. On signatures we mandate user's names in their signature is immediately identifiable as them; the same applies to usernames being individual enough that the user is never mistaken as someone else."
- Hmm, I think this would be handled by a case by case basis, where it depends on how significant the old name was. In the case of Emmett, he did many significant things on the Wiki as "Shadowcrest" (in fact the majority of his work was done as Shadowcrest), and the old name is as such historically significant as well as heavily associated with him. So we wouldn't allow a new user to come on and use some variation of "Shadowcrest", as it could still cause confusion with the user Emmett and with those old significant contributions. In the case of DarkFox01, since he didn't do much of note as "MeleeMarth01" and no one really remembers him by that name, I think it would be acceptable to let a new user use some variation of "MeleeMarth". Omega Tyrant 00:19, 12 September 2013 (EDT)
- how admins should deal with a newly created account with a username that violates any of the above - can we add something about emailing them directly if possible, as that's often the best way of getting in contact with someone. "Join wiki, get ban" is not the most welcoming series of events, and an email explaining the situation and asking them to check their talk page would help alleviate that.
- Aside from the above, strong support. PenguinofDeath 02:59, 12 September 2013 (EDT)
- Hmm, thinking about it more, in the case of a similar username, the user won't get the immediate block, since it doesn't cause immediate problems. Though of course if they refuse to go with a name change, a block would then be necessary. The email note seems fine to me. Omega Tyrant 04:04, 12 September 2013 (EDT)
- Support - per all. I don't see anything wrong with this... Scr7(talk · contribs) 17:27, 12 September 2013 (EDT)
In the case where a name is bad but a reasonable alternative is proposed (such as "Bobthemoneythefreshestthehandsomest" to "Bobthemoney"), and the user refuses, what would the harm be in a b-crat going through with the rename anyway? Toomai Glittershine The Engineer 18:30, 12 September 2013 (EDT)
- I don't really see a problem with it, but if the user refused before, I can't see the user acting positive at all over it. Though in the case of excessively long names it should just be done so their name doesn't screw up their userpages' titles and page histories. Omega Tyrant 02:17, 14 September 2013 (EDT)
YEAH, BOIIIII - This policy is overall a good proposal. If this policy gets in, then hopefully, the minor issues can be altered so it works better by the admins. But overall, do I think this policy works? Hell yes! SmashBall104; Landmaster Totaled...OH NOES! 20:34, 12 September, 2013 (EDT)
- 1 Reporting similar and unacceptable usernames
- 2 Bot names
- 3 My name isn't that hard to spell!!!
- 4 Some minor additions...
Reporting similar and unacceptable usernames
If there are users you see that you think have usernames that violate this policy and haven't been dealt with by the administration, report them below in a new subsection. In the case of too similar usernames, link to the existing user the offending username is too similar to. Omega Tyrant 12:46, 29 September 2013 (EDT)
These two users
- There's also one called Meleefan98 who joined after MeleeFan98 and before SSBMFan98. Scr7(talk · contribs) 14:40, 29 September 2013 (EDT)
"Meleefan98" came first, "SSBMFan" was next, and "MeleeFan98" was most recent. The first two share IP addresses; the third doesn't, but it's reasonably close geographically. None of their edits overlap in time. It's possible they're all the same person; the first two certainly are. Toomai Glittershine Da Bomb 14:54, 29 September 2013 (EDT)
This seems to be a clear cut case of non-malicious sockpuppetry, and since the accounts edited at different times, it seems the user keeps forgetting their password or something. I have informed them to choose an account so that the old accounts can be merged into them. Omega Tyrant 15:43, 29 September 2013 (EDT)
Since Awesome101 has a similar username to The Awesome, would this count in being an unacceptable username despite The Awesome now being long inactive? Dots The Operator 14:44, 29 September 2013 (EDT)
I did a check user, and this user is nearly in the same location as Awesome was (both in Ontario, Canada), just with one in Toronto and the other in Brampton. I find it far too unlikely that two separate people that close to each other wanted to be known as Awesome, rather than The Awesome just moving recently or something like that, especially with Awesome's sockpuppetry past. Will be giving the sockpuppet treatment.
- A new section for listing violations could instead be put on the administrator's noticeboard. Awesome Cardinal 2000 15:49, 29 September 2013 (EDT)
- See what I wrote there; these should be kept in one place, and since unacceptable usernames are a lot more subjective than vandals/spammers, they may necessitate discussion, perhaps extensively so in controversial cases (which this page is better suited to handle). Omega Tyrant 18:28, 29 September 2013 (EDT)
Well, bust my bologna and cheese!
It seems you missed one of the impersonators, OT. I mean, maybe we don't need to deal with him since the user never did anything, but just a heads up. SmashBall104: Butter side down! 19:09, 29 October 2013 (EDT)
What do we do for this name issue
So it turns out we have another Smashball. However, this Smashball has actually been around before SmashBall104. That Smashball was unwilling to change their name if given the option for the other Smashball to be forced to change his name.
Now we have to decide, who has the right to the name? Smashballz came around 7 months sooner, but has been barely active since August of last year, with months between their edits and only then sticking around for a day before leaving again. SmashBall104 on the other hand, has been a consistently active user since joining the wiki.
When it comes to contributions, Smashballz's mainspace edits have been better, but SmashBall104 has attempted to contribute to other areas, and since he's been more consistently active, has contributed more overall. Smashballz also has a high amount of userspace edits, with about 40% of their edits going towards their userpage and user images.
So, who gets the right to the Smashball name? The user who came first, despite being mostly inactive and dubious userpage editing? Or the user who came later that has been consistently active and is not in any danger of being probated? Or, for the semi-joke option, do both get forced to change their username and we ban the Smashball name altogether? Omega Tyrant 17:22, 27 November 2013 (EST)
- Dubious? WHO YOU CALLIN' DUBIOUS? I have more Mainspace edits than anything else in my Editcount! Crapfully Original, Smashballz (talk) 19:39, 3 December 2013 (EST)
- I would say the one who's more prominent on the wiki should keep their name. Looking at their editcounts, Smashballz seems to have made more mainspace/productive contributions, but SmashBall104 is arguably much more notable due to appearing around the wiki a lot more frequently and consistently. I'm pretty much unsure on which one should change their name at the moment, maybe wait for a bit more. But if it continues like this, Smashballz seems to be the one who should change their name. Scr7(talk · contribs) 18:06, 27 November 2013 (EST)
We need more input on this. Right now I'm leaning towards giving 104 the name, as their contribution level is roughly equal, but 104 has been consistently active while z hasn't been around at all really for over a year, and even then wasn't that established of a user when they were. Omega Tyrant 08:50, 28 November 2013 (EST)
- Yes, though we still have to decide what we do in a case like this for future precedent. Omega Tyrant 09:34, 28 November 2013 (EST)
- If another user with a similar name to SmashBall has just been found, I think SmashBall104 has the right. He's more famous, and the circumstances in his favor are far greater than another user who seldom came here and is now long inactive. Chilex (talk) 09:25, 30 November 2013 (EST)
Well, I AM the Original Smashball. I was planning for a name change to TVTrash, since that is my username on the place that is the reason why i am inactive a lot, but seeing this, maybe not. Perhaps you could tell 104 to change his..... Smashballz (talk) 19:29, 3 December 2013 (EST)
Ok, this is getting ridiculous now.
@Smashballz: You can't just come here and start complaining you're the "original", when it has been established here the Wiki doesn't think being "first" here is the deciding factor. Additionally, you trump up your mainspace edits, yet in your last 50 edits (that go back a year and a half ago), you only have 9 mainspace edits (2 of which can be knocked off since they were immediate fixes to an immediate edit, leaving you with 7 constructive edits in your last 50). If this editing pattern keeps up you will risk being put on probation, so you certainly can't be trumping yourself up as an extensive mainspace editor. Also, don't go telling us that you "would have changed your name" to another less generic name you use on another wiki, only to refuse out of spite of the community not supporting you getting the name.
@Smashball104: If you kept your mouth shut, you would have most likely been given the name. Instead you insult Smashballz, and when he comes to your page, instead of responding respectfully, you respond in a hostile manner and just insult him some more. Additionally, this isn't a dick measuring contest, don't trump up "I have a higher edit count!", when sheer edit count determines nothing here on the Wiki, and the majority of those edits aren't constructive, as well as consisting of mainspace edits that were mostly useless trivia inserts that got reverted anyway.
So, with you both being asses about this (really, it's just a generic username, it's not something to start fighting another user over), neither of you having a real strong case for the name, and it being established that both of you go by other less generic usernames on other Wikis that you spend more time on, I've decided that both of you will have to change your username. I'll be enforcing this in 24 hours unless someone can give a refute to this judgment. Omega Tyrant 21:01, 3 December 2013 (EST)
Yeah, I saw both of these names under WhosOnline. I'm just going to mention all the information I can gather here:
- The Master Hand came here just today, while Crazymasterhand98 has been here since June of this year.
- The Master Hand has done nothing here.
Not sure what we should do about this one, but if both of them are still going to stay and edit, then we HAVE to do something. Currently, I'm in favor of the new one getting the name change, due to his lower notability and lack of contributions. Of course if the older one agrees to change HIS, then problem solved. So! Anyone want to give their two cents? MeatBall104: D'oh! I missed! 14:42, 14 December 2013 (EST)
- There's also MasterHand, Master hand x 6789, and MasterofMasterHand. So out of these five, the only one who's actually done notable things on the wiki is Crazymasterhand, while the other four have done barely anything outside of their userpages, except for "The Master Hand" who made an article that's currently up for deletion. Just saying. Scr7(talk · contribs) 14:51, 14 December 2013 (EST)
- Someone with just "Master Hand" is fine, it's enough of a distinction from "Crazymasterhand". "MasterofMasterHand" is debatable as well. However, all the other Master Hands are inactive users who only made a few edits (and 6789 is a banned sockpuppet). So "The Master Hand" can keep their name, and if they prove constructive, will get the right to the name over the MasterHand. Omega Tyrant 19:59, 14 December 2013 (EST)
Once again, this is taken from someone who showed up on WhosOnline. The user I linked to has done nothing, and they joined last month. The existing Zeldasmash on the other hand has actually done something around here, (albeit mostly userspace edits), and has been consistently active here, (that said, he went inactive a while back and only made one edit last year. Personally, I think the one who should change their name is obviously the former, especially seeing that the policy specifically states that just adding extra characters, (in this case, "-chi") doesn't count as making the username stand out enough. However, I don't has teh rightz, so discussion time! MeatBall104: The Bikini-Inspector >:D 21:09, 12 March 2014 (EDT)
It seems that WaluigiFag is still hanging around according to Who's online. Though the user was blocked weeks ago due to vandal edits, we may need to consider taking action on the user's name on top of that. Berrenta (talk) 19:02, 15 September 2014 (EDT)
- I'm inclined to agree. I'll also add that there's a good-faith user here named Supersmashgasm, whose username is basically a parody on the word "orgasm", which I think we can all agree is a lewd and inappropriate word. MeatBall104; Want some fried green tomatoes with that? 19:11, 15 September 2014 (EDT)
Unable to register
I've been trying to register for over 10 minutes with all possible non-offensive names. On other Wikis I usually go by the name of "El Rocky Raccoon" or "Valhalen", but I can't register either here because it says they're "Blacklisted". I tried a bunch of other possible names, but EVERYTHING is tagged as "Blacklisted". So... How do I register here without any kind of headache? I don't even know if this is the right place to report this kind of problem, but I see no "Contact Admin" page/e-mail or anything.
- I think I messed something up, give me a minute. Toomai Glittershine The Yellow 17:41, 22 September 2014 (EDT)
- Okay try again. Toomai Glittershine The Non-Toxic 17:41, 22 September 2014 (EDT)
Profane, I think
- Looks like an obvious violation to me. Body part slang doesn't bode well, especially if said part is inappropriate. Berrenta (talk) 23:23, 4 November 2014 (EST)
- Put new names at the bottom of the page, not the top; the "new names at top" rule only applies to the admin noticeboard. Another thing: check to see if this user is Tourneyfag (talk · contribs ·
- A question like this should be made in its own section. Anyway, I see no problem with a user operating a bot with a similar name to theirs, as long as the bot's name makes it clear it's a bot (which your example does). Omega Tyrant 21:01, 3 December 2013 (EST)
My name isn't that hard to spell!!!
- This isn't something to bitch about across three different talk pages. Scr7(talk · contribs) 15:07, 20 January 2014 (EST)
Some minor additions...
While the policy itself is perfectly fine the way it is, I also think that there are some things that should be mentioned. And some of you may ask why we need them if they're not currently an issue, but as OT said once, "Just because something doesn't popup often doesn't mean that it isn't a problem when it happens, and that there shouldn't be a ruling against it; in fact we shouldn't wait for something to become an issue before we implement policies against it.". Now without further ado, here they are...
- Some additional notes to add to the foreign characters rule:
- "...and regardless of whether we would be able to understand/type out such usernames, keep in mind that such characters could possibly appear differently depending on the server and/or computer that a user is using to read the Wiki, and may not appear legible to even those who can speak the language." (This is a minor one).
- "Note that the same goes for foreign names that are typed in English characters, such as "Kisuno Tabashi"."
- An additional rule to add to the policy: "Usernames that resemble IP addresses. Such names are problematic on a Wiki, where it is imperative that users and IPs are immediately distinguishable from each other. A user with a username that resembles an IP can give the illusion of wiki-glitches, such as their talk page not being marked with the proper tags, supposed IPs being able to edit semi-protected pages, and CheckUser not working properly on such users. Additionally, if the name resembles an IP that was used by a troublesome user and/or vandal, it can lead to accidental blocks of good-faith users. This also ties in with the incomprehensibility rule, as it creates difficulty recognizing and referring to the user."
- It's probably not a bad idea to add that note about unusual characters. MediaWiki automatically disallows usernames that are IP addresses, so I don't think we need to ban it ourselves. I don't know what you're trying to say with your second bullet; "Kisuno Tabashi" would be a perfectly fine username. Toomai Glittershine The Metroid 15:29, 23 May 2014 (EDT)
- Yeah, kind of a bad example, but what I meant to say was that since we are an English-speaking Wiki, most users might not be able to understand what the name means (as already mentioned on the page itself). And thus, even if it's written in English characters, not being able to understand the name would be bad since for all we know, they could have a username that violates some of the other issues, such as vulgarity or offensiveness. Also, I just now noticed that I forgot to mention one of my ideas when I started this section so here it is: "Usernames that imply that the user is of higher authorities. This can create confusion among the community, especially when a user wants to notify people on here such as Administrators, and could thus mistake a user with such a name for an admin only to realize that they are not and end up wasting time. Examples of such usernames would be "Administrator Mike" and "Bill the Bureaucrat". MeatBall104: Drinkin' mah RC colerr! 19:33, 23 May 2014 (EDT)