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.

So yeah, support, oppose, post anything you have to say, and point out any problems in what is written and in the format of the page. Omega Tyrant 20:53, 11 September 2013 (EDT)

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."

Both users would be known as "smashball" if the other didn't exist, their usernames are essentially identical. You really can't get anymore similar than that. Omega Tyrant 22:35, 11 September 2013 (EDT)

What if some user decide to change their username but coincidentally someone else makes an account using that user's former username? ZeldaStarfoxfan2164 (talk) 23:54, 11 September 2013 (EDT)

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)

Well if no one else has anything to say in opposition to this, I'll pass this as official policy in 24 hours. Omega Tyrant 02:17, 14 September 2013 (EDT)

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

MeleeFan98

SSBMFan98

I think these two users have a similar usernames, and SSBMFan98 was the one who joined after MeleeFan98. Boo Buddy 14:34, 29 September 2013 (EDT)

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)

Awesome

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)

It does count, because Smash Master had the same case. Boo Buddy 14:47, 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.

Also Dots, create a new subsection for new reports. Omega Tyrant 15:43, 29 September 2013 (EDT)

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)

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)

We could try asking 104 if he would like a name change. Awesome Cardinal 2000 09:31, 28 November 2013 (EST)