SmashWiki talk:Changing one's username

Support. It's necessary if users would like to know how the process works, because some users don't know how it works (some users probably don't even know it even exists), and this would help them with the rename process. While I prefer this being merged with SW:NAME, it could go either way, to be honest. Rtzxy Reflect! 23:15, 4 December 2014 (EST)

Strong support Any user wanting a name change can find this helpful. Berrenta (talk) 23:56, 4 December 2014 (EST)

Strong support This is extremely helpful. Dots (talk) The Happy 18:16, 12 January 2015 (EST)

Support People have been having a lot of questions about changing usernames recently. It may be helpful to merge this with the general username policy. Awesome Cardinal 2000 21:46, 15 March 2015 (EDT)

A question

If you wanted to change your Username but it was denied, is it possible for people to try a different one? Just curious because im changing my username in the near future. TabuuandMasterCore 22:12, 19 June 2016 (EDT)

Two-part update

This first part is a reasonable addition that I expect no one would have a problem with.

While bureaucrats are technically capable of renaming themselves, this is discouraged. They should instead go through the normal process with another bureaucrat.

If a staff member gets a name change that is significantly different from their old name, a sitenotice should be posted that informs the userbase of this, which should stay up for at least a week.

This second part I am less certain of, and I expect to be the main thing discussed.

It is possible that a user may wish for a name that is already taken. Generally, this is not allowed. However, if the user with the desired name has few or no contributions, it may be acceptable to dislodge them. This will be taken on a case-by-case basis, but the important rules are that the old user:
* must have less than 10 edits (i.e. not autoconfirmed)
* must not have any of their edits be majorly significant
* must have no talk page edits
* must have no edits in the past 3 years

If dislodged, the user will be notified on their talk page that another user has claimed their username due to inactivity, and what their new user name is. The new user name will be equal to the old name with "Moved" added on the end.

Toomai Glittershine The Emissary 18:31, May 10, 2021 (EDT)

I think those qualifications are fine for the second part. Aidan, the Rurouni 19:39, May 10, 2021 (EDT)

I find it unsavory that the second point is only being proposed now after an admin/bcrat wanted to change their name and found that their desired name was already taken in its raw form by a long gone rando, but that said I don't see anything wrong with "reclaiming" the name of old inactive accounts that never edited. I would suggest the following addendums though:

• Reduce the time of no edits to past 2 years; I think 3 years is a bit much, as any account that went inactive for a year without reaching autoconfirmed status is almost certainly not going to come back, and so waiting 3 years after their last edit feels excessive.

• Remove the requirement of no talk page edits; not sure why that would be an automatic disqualifier, especially so when plenty of accounts that would fall under this have made a random talk page post before disappearing (especially vandal accounts).

• If an account was permabanned for being a vandal/spam/sock account, the name is free to reclaim immediately regardless of the account's last time edited and the amount of edits they made (it's not unheard of for vandal/spam accounts to make 10+ edits and thus reach autoconfirmed status, such as from a particular sock abuser recently that was intentionally reaching autoconfirmed status with their accounts before going on vandal sprees).

• If a noteworthy figure, whether Smash-based or not, were to make an account here and found that their name/tag was taken, the time requirement can be waived upon verification. We have had instances of people here using the names of big Smash people, such as "Leffen", and non-Smash based people, such as "Scott the Woz". Ignoring cases where the account was permabanned, such as for the latter, if these people were to legitimately join the wiki they shouldn't have to wait around for potentially 2/3 years just to get the name they're known by. We could also possibly put in that such names aren't allowed to begin with in the username policy without verification of being the real deal, which I was thinking so anyway after seeing names like the latter pop up from the aforementioned sock abuser.

• Bureaucrats have the discretion to allow a name reclaim not covered by these requirements, and deny any request that technically fulfills these requirements. Simply gives an out to any corner cases that may pop up where a name reclaim is reasonable (such as where the taken name was clearly a vandal/sock that flew under the radar enough to not get banned prior), as well as an out to cases where a user requesting a reclaim is just fucking around or otherwise clearly doesn't have good intentions with the request.

If these addendums can be made or otherwise addressed, I can support this. Omega Tyrant 20:40, May 10, 2021 (EDT)

For what it's worth, I support the initial proposed changes to the username policy, and I also support all of Omega Tyrant's suggested addendums. John LONG LIVE DEDEDE! 22:43, May 10, 2021 (EDT)

> "I find it unsavory that the second point is only being proposed now after an admin/bcrat wanted to change their name and found that their desired name was already taken in its raw form by a long gone rando"

I could be wrong, but I think this is the first time that anyone has wanted to change their name and found it both occupied and unused. This isn't being suggested just because that person was a staff member. Toomai Glittershine The Dispenser 07:55, May 11, 2021 (EDT)

• 2 years is definitely on the low end to me, but it's probably fine.
• The intent of the "no talk page edits" line was to guarantee that no old signatures would point to the wrong user. Not sure if there's a wording that can keep this idea while not letting a talkpage edit be an instant "no".
• I see the point of this "account got banned but managed 10+ edits before then" change.
• I don't personally want to start us having to police whether someone has the "rights" to a username that happens to be well-known elsewhere. If so, it would indeed belong more in the username policy than in here.
• Yeah a "discretion" point should be added.

Toomai Glittershine The Dispenser 07:55, May 11, 2021 (EDT)

Regarding the talk page thing, if the user in question has a very small number of edits anyway (as required by this policy amendment), it should be pretty easy to change where the links on signatures point to, right? Alex the Weeb 08:18, May 11, 2021 (EDT)

Not suggesting that there's any ill intent behind this, just acknowledging that it comes off as unsavory, but regardless I would support it still. As for the signatures, I agree with Alex that it should be quick and simple to manually change a few signatures in the event that a reclaim target made a few talk page posts, as by the nature of the requirements they can't have more than ten such posts (or they would be vandal/sock accounts likely caught pretty early). Can even make it a requirement that the user requesting the name reclaim must make those edits themselves to not add any extra workload for the bureaucrats. As for the "rights" to a username issue, I would just find it silly if some top player decided to start editing here and then couldn't use their tag for potentially up to two years because some rando fan or impersonator registered the name first, but it can be argued that the general "discretion" point already covers it, where in such a situation a bureaucrat can overrule the listed requirements to get them their name. Omega Tyrant 09:12, May 11, 2021 (EDT)