SmashWiki:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 3

This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current talk page.

The Administrators' noticeboard is intended to be a page to quickly alert the administrators to issues that need their attention.

To make a request or statement, create a new section and provide a neutral, precise summary of events with thought-out reasoning, and, if possible, links to any pages with relevant discussions. It is also a good idea to notify any users involved with the request with a link to the section on this page. Make sure to add new sections to the bottom.

Report vandals in the following section labeled for such reports at the top using {{IP|Username}}, where Username is the name of the user or the IP vandal's IP address.

Vandal reports

Please place new vandal reports at the top of this section.

98.177.235.217 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log · WHOIS) 123JamesHeart 11:35, 3 June 2012 (EDT)

204.113.120.243 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log · WHOIS) 123JamesHeart 11:52, 30 April 2012 (EDT)

Toomami (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log · WHOIS) user impersonation of Toomai ..... The Autistic 21:17, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

98.177.235.217 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log · WHOIS) Toast ltimatum 17:55, 23 March 2012 (EDT)

80.101.32.221 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log · WHOIS) Luigi540 (talk) 16:16, 31 January 2012 (EST)

Godziller (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log · WHOIS) He left cryptic messages on my talk page. Some involved death threats. Drakon64 21:35, 20 January 2012 (EST)

68.206.175.210 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log · WHOIS) ..... Happy New Year 22:57, 29 December 2011 (EST)

ST44 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log · WHOIS) Mr. Anontalk 20:57, 5 November 2011 (EDT)

92.251.208.153 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log · WHOIS) DoctorPain99 11:14, 11 June 2011 (EDT)

There's not much point in blocking someone who makes a single edit and goes away. Toomai Glittershine The Riotous 11:53, 11 June 2011 (EDT)

207.190.75.131 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log · WHOIS) Garo108 09:15, 9 November 2010 (EST)

*shrug* Minor one-time vandalism of a six-month-plus old archive. I don't think that's deserving of anything. Toomai Glittershine 10:08, 9 November 2010 (EST)

I suppose we have different views on how to handle vandalism then. Garo108 10:16, 9 November 2010 (EST)

184.96.240.167 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log · WHOIS) Mr. Anon (talk) 23:45, 12 December 2010 (EST)

Minor one-time vandalism. A block isn't needed imo. In addition, that can be a tournament, as the ip took the time to post his placing, whether or not it's true, and the *.--MegaTron1XD 23:55, 12 December 2010 (EST)

I'm not sure if that's vandalism. Smash tournaments can have some strange, nonsensical names. Omega Tyrant 23:56, 12 December 2010 (EST)

Home-run/Home-Run

Mobile phone pictures

"Home-run Contest" and "Home-run Bat" should be moved to Home-Run Contest and Home-Run Bat respectively (see right). Both need the redirects to be deleted or merged before the pages can be moved. - Reboot (talk) 01:39, 30 November 2010 (EST)

Cat:Candidates for speedy deletion

Category:Candidates for speedy deletion is getting to the point that it needs cleared out. - Reboot (talk) 15:38, 28 December 2010 (EST)

How about now? *deep breath* Miles (talk) 16:08, 28 December 2010 (EST)

Now, you're done...with THAT batch ;) - Reboot (talk) 16:12, 28 December 2010 (EST)

:/ Miles (talk) 16:23, 28 December 2010 (EST)

I was handling these before, but due to my current internet situation, I'm unable to. When my situation stabilises, I'll be able to handle these again. But since they're just unused images, there's no need to rush their deletion. Omega Tyrant 17:24, 28 December 2010 (EST)

Leeching icon from Wikia

The "new posts" icon on Forum:Index is linked from here, on Wikia rather than this wiki, as I found out when I tried to upload a cleaned-up icon there. Can someone please deWikiafy it? - Reboot (talk) 18:23, 28 December 2010 (EST)

Additional: It's in MediaWiki:Common.css, and there's another image there - the checkerboard pattern that backgrounds transparent images (originally from Commons:File:Checker-16x16.png) is also hotlinked from Wikia. I've uploaded it to . - Reboot (talk) 18:42, 28 December 2010 (EST)

Both should be fixed now. If you're still seeing the old versions, refresh; if you still see them afterwards, post here. Miles (talk) 18:45, 28 December 2010 (EST)

Both fixed for me. - Reboot (talk) 18:50, 28 December 2010 (EST)

Page moves

Crawling

Can Crawling be moved to Crawl, please (there's a redirect which needs to be deleted to allow the move). - Reboot (talk) 19:55, 27 January 2011 (EST)

Why would such a move be necessary? Toomai Glittershine The Awesome 20:01, 27 January 2011 (EST)

As SmashWiki:Manual of Style#Article_titles states:

Titles should be nouns as opposed to verbs.

"Crawl" is a noun, "Crawling" is a present-tense verb. - Reboot (talk) 14:51, 30 January 2011 (EST)

"Crawling" is also a gerund, basically a verb that's being used as a noun. Toomai Glittershine The Undirigible 15:04, 30 January 2011 (EST)

Well, "Crawl" seemed more intuitive to me, but... *shrugs* - Reboot (talk) 15:11, 8 February 2011 (EST)

Team battle/Battle

Team battle -> Team Battle, as "Battle" is capitalised in the Team Healer trophy. - Reboot (talk) 15:11, 8 February 2011 (EST)

It's also the name of a mode, so done. Toomai Glittershine The Celeritous 17:42, 8 February 2011 (EST)

Camera [Mode]

Can Camera be moved to Camera Mode, please? I'd like to make a page on the in-battle camera at [[Camera]] (which is what most of the links that don't go to [[Camera Mode]] seem to expect...) - Reboot (talk) 15:17, 9 February 2011 (EST)

Delete

Please delete File:EarthboundNewAgeRetroHippie.gif (I uploaded that).--Wolf rulez! Playtime's over! 10:48, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

Bump.--Wolf rulez! The best! 14:10, 27 May 2011 (EDT)

Piratehunter

Quotes from IRC: "[19:18] <+pH-X> no one asked an autistic fucktard bipolar patient either :P".
"[19:24] <+pH-X> I THOUGHT YOU WERE ABOVE A .7 IQ [19:24] <+pH-X> but alas [19:24] <+pH-X> I am incorrect"
Stuff like this is why Piratehunter is banned on the wiki. He keeps violating SW:NPA with his flaming and trolling, and nothing is being done about it. Users are tired of having to deal with his nonsense when on IRC. May someone please ban him? DoctorPain99 22:22, 15 June 2011 (EDT)

He has been banned from the wiki, but something needs to be done on IRC about his consistant personal attacks. Mr. Anon (talk) 00:01, 16 June 2011 (EDT)

Um, bump? Mr. Anon (talk) 00:06, 18 June 2011 (EDT)

Look at this...

...and find a bunch of files that need a new name.--PSIWolf (T • C • E) 11:11, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

Duplicate image

I uploaded the image Hell Hawk.jpg, but it wasn't uploaded due to some random error. Then I re-uploaded it and somehow two versions were uploaded. I would like one of the "versions" to be deleted. ^Smiddle 君怒る? 05:58, 20 August 2011 (EDT)

Reverting war

Theres users that keep reverting my pictures. BlindColours and other users keep reverting my pictures. You need to block them indefinite immediately so block them NNOOOOOOWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brandondorf9999 (talk • contribs) 22:45, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

For making the text in your post that large and visually disrupting this page, you're going to be blocked. Also, don't request permabans, especially for simply reverting you. This is not how you handle your edits and uploads being reverted. Omega Tyrant 22:55, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

Sidebar

So this one time at band camp, I wanted to edit the sidebar to make it less awful, but SmashWiki doesn't have the right MediaWiki extension to allow users to have a user-specific personalized sidebar. Can we fix this, plz? PenguinofDeath 16:03, 17 October 2011 (EDT)

This is what we want, by the way. PenguinofDeath 17:08, 17 October 2011 (EDT)

Ban evasion

SmashPeter appears to be evading his ban through his IP. Mr. Anontalk 13:16, 30 October 2011 (EDT)

What happened to my account?

I am Randall00, a largely inactive administrator. My account appears to no longer exist when I try to log in. What has happened here? I do require some degree of control over some of my personal information scattered about this wiki and the historical record of CCSC events, however I will have some difficulty doing so if my account is not restored. --192.41.148.220 16:14, 21 December 2011 (EST)

Recreate your account under the same name. While userpages and edits were brought over, accounts were not. Omega Tyrant 16:38, 21 December 2011 (EST)

Great, thank you very much. --Randall00 (talk) 16:41, 21 December 2011 (EST)

McAusten Ban Evasion

McAusten seems to be evading his ban through his IP 144.132.85.58. Mousehunter321 (talk · contributions) 21:18, 21 December 2011 (EST)

Ban me

I fear my anger grows to point of excessive vandalism among the wiki. Ban me before this happens. I beg of you all.Drakon64 (talk) 10:43, 24 December 2011 (EST)

Please forget or delete what I said above. Sorry for any distribution this may have caused. Drakon64

Distribution? You mean disruption. Toast ltimatum 17:16, 24 December 2011 (EST)

Why do you want to be banned? ..... towmmarow is Chrismas 17:17, 24 December 2011 (EST)

I suspect his account was hacked. Mr. Anontalk 17:40, 24 December 2011 (EST)

That can happen?! O_O Drakon64

Mr. Curious

I'm just going to give you guys a heads up. Mr. Curious is an extremely stubborn person from SmashWikia. You can see the things he's done here, here, here, and here. He has been blocked MULTIPLE times, but he changes his IP address to evade the blocks. You can also ask the people back at SmashWikia about his behavior, more specifically, Conkers Bad Fur Day or GunBlazer. Unknown the Hedgehog 23:01, 30 January 2012 (EST)

I am aware of this guy. I do not plan on blocking him on principle, but he will have a very short leash. Other admins may disagree. Toomai Glittershine The Producer 23:04, 30 January 2012 (EST)

If he tries bringing his crap here, I say we permaban him instantly. No reason to go lenient on him when he has quite the history elsewhere of being insanely stubborn and unwilling to listen to logic. Omega Tyrant 23:23, 30 January 2012 (EST)

Not sure if my opinion is warranted, but judging by his contribs on the other Wiki, his history shows that if he makes similar edits to the ones he did on the other wiki, his edits would warrant a permaban regardless of his history on the other wiki. His edits constitute vandalism, and therefore his account fits the definition of a "throw-away" account, one who comes on and only vandalises, warranting a permaban. DoctorPain99 _{ROLLBACKER} 23:35, 30 January 2012 (EST)

I wouldn't have permabanned instantly in his case of SmashWikia, as vandal/spam accounts don't attempt to reason (as poorly done as it was, Curious Fan did respond to talk page posts and tried to argue his point). Though of course once it became apparent that he never played Brawl, was intent on being a disruptive user, and would refuse to listen to others and logic, the permaban would of came from me. Omega Tyrant 23:43, 30 January 2012 (EST)

Ah, okay. I didn't see that; looking at a list of edits isn't the same thing as being a part of the situation, and slightly misinterpreted the chain of events. But I still believe if he starts harassing users or vandalising, there isn't a thing in the world that would make him a contributor to the Wiki. DoctorPain99 _{ROLLBACKER} 23:48, 30 January 2012 (EST)

Beware

Is anyone aware that this guy User:SSBC Fan could be really SSBC and is evading his block? THEAVENGINGBANDIT 19:39, 11 February 2012 (EST)

Unlikely in my opinion. Toomai Glittershine The Awesome 19:40, 11 February 2012 (EST)

SSBC isn't blocked on this wiki anyways. 21:21, 11 February 2012 (EST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr. Anon (talk • contribs) 21:21, 11 February 2012 (EST)

Sign your comments next time. OK? THEAVENGINGBANDIT 21:39, 11 February 2012 (EST)

I think he already knows that hes should sign his comments. Its just that he forgot for that one time. ..... Bein' Friends 21:54, 11 February 2012 (EST)

Actually, from what I can tell, Anon signed with five tildes instead of four; that keeps the timestamp, but removes the username portion. --- ReiDemon, Author Extraordinaire, 22:00, 11 February 2012 (EST)

Pgj1997

There is a username under Pgj1997. It seems familiar to SmashPeters mario wiki username. Is this new username being aware of? ..... Bein' Friends 17:21, 14 February 2012 (EST)

Don't block him or revert his vandalism until I get rollback. I'll be online for the next 7 hours. THEAVENGINGBANDIT 17:23, 14 February 2012 (EST)

But SW:AGF will still apply. ..... Bein' Friends 17:25, 14 February 2012 (EST)

Avengingbandit: Wikis do not work that way. If he's seen to be vandalizing, his edits will be reverted and he will be banned. If you want Rollback so bad, you just have to make sure that it's you who gets the reverts, cos other users won't wait for you. PenguinofDeath 17:30, 14 February 2012 (EST)

K. I'll react instantly if he makes a vandal edit. THEAVENGINGBANDIT 17:32, 14 February 2012 (EST)

Then be ready if he does. ..... Bein' Friends 17:33, 14 February 2012 (EST)

It is generally uncommon for vandal accounts to not do anything once created. I would not assume this is one. Toomai Glittershine The Inconceivable 17:34, 14 February 2012 (EST)

Does the user have the same IP as SmashPeter's. That what I would like to know about. ..... Bein' Friends 17:36, 14 February 2012 (EST)

I'm not going to look unless he shows similar behaviour. Toomai Glittershine The Victorious 17:39, 14 February 2012 (EST)

User:Brandondorf9999 block evasion

This user appears to be evading his block through 75.142.67.97 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log · WHOIS). Mousehunter321 (talk · contributions) 00:52, 15 March 2012 (EDT)

Ban me

Now that I am doing editing on WiKirby, I needed a new name. Meta Ike doesnt look good there, an besides, I dont even main them. So, I am going to make a new account, "Bomb Kirby". This is now a sockpuppet account. I don't want to be tempted to use this account for nefarious purposes (such as vandalism of userpages of users I dont like and voting twice on Smash Arena). I will still contribute, just with a different account. I would just like to start over.

If you could change my username, that would work too. Meta Ike 15:09, 24 March 2012 (EDT)

Yes we can change your username. Wait for a few days to make sure it's what you want, then post on my talk page. Toomai Glittershine The Spark 16:37, 24 March 2012 (EDT)

Okay. I'm thinking... Meta Ike 12:58, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

Meta Ike / Bomb Kirby, I would recommend a username change moreso. Your decision, but I say that way. That way, all the content on your talk page and your contributions stay on one account. Toast ltimatum 13:16, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

impersonator?

Toomami (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log · WHOIS) ..... The Autistic 21:19, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

Userpage deletion

I move that we delete the following protected userpages:

• User:Dark Mai Valentine - Userpage protected in August 2011, user did nothing but vote in Smash Arena, and hasn't made an edit since userpage protection.
• User:Etbmax - Userpage protected in August 2011, user did nothing but edit userpage, and only made one edit since userpage protection, just to announce leaving the Wiki.
• User:Fuddlebob - Userpage protected in August 2011, user did nothing but edit Smash Arena and casual forums (outside two isolated mainspace edits), and user hasn't made an edit since a week after userpage protection (as well as stated on his talk page that he doesn't care about his userpage).
• User:Jacobdf11 - Userpage protected in August 2011, user did nothing but vote in Smash Arena (outside one early mainspace edit), and hasn't made an edit since userpage protection.
• User:HeidiHedgefox - Userpage protected in March 2012, user did nothing but edit their userpage with a few Smash Arena edits and a few isolated mainspace edits, userpage primarily serves to advertise themselves, and user only came back after November 2011 to make a scene on her talkpage about leaving the Wiki, without making any attempt to get the userpage protection undone.

Userpage deletion is a controversial topic, but I believe these protected userpages can be agreed upon to be deleted. They're all userpages of users who have been inactive for over six months and some cases, of users publicly announcing leaving the Wiki. They're also userpages of users who did absolutely nothing to get the protection undone. And in the case of one user, their userpage is just an advertisement for things they do outside the Wiki.

In the rare occasion where one of these users do come back, they can always get their userpage recreated, after they actually put in a legitimate effort in contributing constructively to the mainspace. Omega Tyrant 07:18, 31 May 2012 (EDT)

I'm guessing this is punishment for not contributing? I'm not sure about this. ..... The Scientist 09:09, 31 May 2012 (EDT)

There are a ton of userpages for users who don't actually have accounts, cos the pages were imported from Wikia, but you want to delete this small handful, for no particularly good reason, despite the fact that all these users have been active within the last year? ahahahahano PenguinofDeath 09:45, 31 May 2012 (EDT)

Perhaps keep with the times? Those userpages that were imported over of users with no accounts have already been deleted or are slated for deletion. For these userpages, perhaps actually read the reason for deleting them and look at the fact they were indefinitely protected? Omega Tyrant 09:57, 31 May 2012 (EDT)

So you're saying that there are still userpages for users who haven't registered here? So my point still stands. If you finish deleting them, maybe you can suggest this again. But even then, none of these users have been blocked indefinitely (or ever, actually) so why are they suddenly deserving of having their user pages deleted? There's nothing stopping any of them from coming back and editing again. And you can't use the fact that the pages have been indefinitely protected as an excuse to delete them; maybe if you hadn't indefinitely protected them, they wouldn't be indefinitely protected... And why exactly did you feel the need to protect them indefinitely? It's not like they're high-traffic or high-risk, nor did the users even over-edit them. None of those pages were edited more than twice in the 24 hours preceding the block. Etbmax did indeed generally over-edit his userpage, but even so, he made only four edits to it in the week preceding the block, which is far from excessive. Dark Mai Valentine edited their userpage a total of four times, and it was three weeks after the fourth time that you arbitrarily determined that their userpage should be protected. Fuddlebob edited his page eight times in the space of a month and a half, and it was over three months after the last edit that you protected it. Jacobdf11 last edited his user page nine months before you protected it. And Amy last edited hers within a few hours of the protection, but before that she hadn't done so for four and a half months. None of these were good protects, except, arguably, Etbmax, and even then that was pretty harsh... And all of them have been active in the last year, so they could still come back at any time, and be pissed off that the userpage they worked so hard on has just been casually deleted for no good reason. There are people who have been gone from the wiki for far longer than these people, and you're not suggesting deleting their userpages. Now let's get onto the point that I didn't really want to raise, but it seems that I have to: why is HeidiHedgefox's page in there? She's been gone for less than three months and you want to delete her page? Be honest, were the other four just a convenient handful to justify that one deletion? If that really is your reason (which I'm not saying it is, just putting the possibility out there) then that's a pretty serious abuse of power... PenguinofDeath 10:45, 31 May 2012 (EDT)

I'm going to have to agree with PenguinofDeath on this topic. I agree with everything he's said above, but I also have a few, somewhat minor addendums. Firstly, deleting these will only make a bunch of extra red/dead links, which have the opportunity to be blue instead. The other is this; userpages aren't just of interest to the users themselves. Those userpages might have content that interest another user, and so deleting them wouldn't be particularly beneficial. These points may be considered quite minor, but the benefits of deleting these pages are very minor as well, it's literally a case of making them not appear in the drop-down search bar. No significant reason to delete, so Oppose. Toast ltimatum 11:33, 31 May 2012 (EDT)

Support - No legit reason to not delete them. Avengingbandit 17:00, 31 May 2012 (EDT)

Again, you have to get with the times PoD if you're going to comment on actions being undertaken on the Wiki. The Wiki been for a while now, protecting userspaces of users who don't contribute constructively to the Wiki. These users been violating SmashWiki is not a personal profile and SmashWiki is not just Smash Arena, and this served to punish them, while still allowing them to contribute constructively to the Wiki. These users however, did absolutely nothing, and either haven't edited the Wiki in over six months since userpage protection, or announced leaving the Wiki.

"So you're saying that there are still userpages for users who haven't registered here? So my point still stands."

If such pages are slated for deletion upon being found, it does not.

"If you finish deleting them, maybe you can suggest this again."

Something else on the Wiki does not need to be completed before doing something else.

"But even then, none of these users have been blocked indefinitely (or ever, actually) so why are they suddenly deserving of having their user pages deleted?"

See above, these users didn't care about being constructive to the Wiki, and chose to leave rather than work to regain userspace editing privileges.

They would also have been blocked instead of having their userspace protected, if the Wiki was going to punish these users as they did in the past (see Zeldasmash's blocks).

"There's nothing stopping any of them from coming back and editing again"

If any of these users are to actually come back and put in work, nothing prevents these pages from being restored for them.

"And you can't use the fact that the pages have been indefinitely protected as an excuse to delete them; maybe if you hadn't indefinitely protected them, they wouldn't be indefinitely protected..."

Read intro paragraph, and that latter bit is irrelevant.

"It's not like they're high-traffic or high-risk, nor did the users even over-edit them. None of those pages were edited more than twice in the 24 hours preceding the block."

Read intro paragraph, and over 50% of edits being userspace editing is certainly over-editing them (the ones who didn't here had those edits go to Smash Arena and other casual forums). The latter bit is again irrelevant; userspaces aren't only protected for over-editing in a single day.

"Dark Mai Valentine edited their userpage a total of four times, and it was three weeks after the fourth time that you arbitrarily determined that their userpage should be protected."

Once again, get with the times. The Wiki was being too lenient in regards to userspace and Smash Arena editing, with there being a surge of users who created and maintained userspaces, who never put a real effort in editing outside them and Smash Arena. Toomai and I, along with other users on here, determined that if these users could create and maintain a userspace, they were capable of being constructive editors to the SmashWiki. Thus offending users had their userspaces indefinitely locked until they shown an effort, and that has been being done ever since. So this is "arbitrarily determined" how?

"None of these were good protects, except, arguably, Etbmax, and even then that was pretty harsh..."

The alternative, blocking them, would have been harsh, and prevented them from actually being able to contribute to the Wiki. Userspace is a privilege, and if users don't take the time to be constructive editors to the Wiki, they quite simply don't deserve one.

"And all of them have been active in the last year, so they could still come back at any time, and be pissed off that the userpage they worked so hard on has just been casually deleted for no good reason."

They should have "worked so hard" on actually helping the Wiki, if they really cared about their userpage. SmashWiki is not a personal profile, users are not entitled to a userspace. Six months is plenty long enough, and since when did users being pissed off mattered when it comes to punitive action? We keep blocking Curious, even though it pisses him off. Also for the bit "they could still come back", two of these users already announced leaving the Wiki; we have no reason to assume they're coming back.

"There are people who have been gone from the wiki for far longer than these people, and you're not suggesting deleting their userpages."

Maybe because those users actually contributed constructively to the Wiki, and didn't get their userspace locked from editing? When I go looking at protected pages, I don't see their pages lying in there. Nice strawman by the way.

"Now let's get onto the point that I didn't really want to raise, but it seems that I have to: why is HeidiHedgefox's page in there? She's been gone for less than three months and you want to delete her page? Be honest, were the other four just a convenient handful to justify that one deletion? If that really is your reason (which I'm not saying it is, just putting the possibility out there) then that's a pretty serious abuse of power..."

Quite some serious accusations you have there, but perhaps you should have payed attention to the bit where she announced leaving the Wiki? All users suggested here shared three things: getting their userspace locked for not contributing constructively to the Wiki and violating SW:NOT, doing absolutely nothing to get their userspace unlocked, and haven't editing in over six months since their userspace being locked, or announced leaving the Wiki as a result of.

Other protected userspaces not here are from; users who did some constructive editing after userspace protection but not enough to get said protection undone (Mastersword), have been active in the past six months (Cherrim98, Drakon64), or a combination of both (Zeldasmash). These may face deletion in the future, but the ones I suggested here fulfill every negative, and are thus the most agreeable, for what is a controversial topic.

Now for Toast:

"Firstly, deleting these will only make a bunch of extra red/dead links, which have the opportunity to be blue instead."

Smashtasm created a bunch of red links, should we have not deleted that because of all the red links it created? Simple answer is, no. Every time a page is deleted, red links potentially rise up, in which case, we remove them as we come along them. Laziness is not a valid excuse to not undergo an action on the Wiki. Not to mention, userpages do not show up in wanted pages, so potential red links from these pages being deleted won't have an actual effect on the functioning of the Wiki.

"hose userpages might have content that interest another user, and so deleting them wouldn't be particularly beneficial."

See prior point on how users are not entitled a userspace, and other users being interested in a page is not a valid reason for keeping it. Again, I'll bring up Smashtasm, which was certainly a page of interest to some people (along with fanon as a whole), yet potential interest was moot in regards to keeping it. I'll also point out, these users wouldn't be known by others anyway, unless they do some extreme archive digging. Omega Tyrant 17:11, 31 May 2012 (EDT)

I'll just clarify a few things about my reasoning. Red links to articles like Smashtasm are different, as they can all be removed. But with links to userpages, I don't believe we can delink when the link is in a signature. So that would be stuck as a redlink, rather than blue. But this point isn't overly relevant, I was just putting it out there.

While it may seem unlikely, there are ways one can wind up on another's userpage. One might be looking at some images, and see that the only place it is used is on a userpage, which said user then decides to view. Another user may have a link to a userpage in a "Users I am Friends With on SmashWiki" section, or other obscurities like that. And the most obvious would be getting linked there via Smash Arena. Point is, unlikely it may seem, it is very possible for users to find themselves on a relatively anonymous user's page, I know I myself have gone on the pages of users I have not heard of a few times, and the pages have been somewhat interesting.

As I said, these reasons are relatively minor, my entry above was more an addendum to PoD's opinion than anything else. But respond if you still feel the neeed. Toast ltimatum 17:31, 31 May 2012 (EDT)

"I'll just clarify a few things about my reasoning. Red links to articles like Smashtasm are different, as they can all be removed. But with links to userpages, I don't believe we can delink when the link is in a signature. So that would be stuck as a redlink, rather than blue. But this point isn't overly relevant, I was just putting it out there."

Read "Not to mention, userpages do not show up in wanted pages, so potential red links from these pages being deleted won't have an actual effect on the functioning of the Wiki."

Point is completely invalid.

While it may seem unlikely, there are ways one can wind up on another's userpage. One might be looking at some images, and see that the only place it is used is on a userpage, which said user then decides to view. Another user may have a link to a userpage in a "Users I am Friends With on SmashWiki" section, or other obscurities like that. And the most obvious would be getting linked there via Smash Arena. Point is, unlikely it may seem, it is very possible for users to find themselves on a relatively anonymous user's page, I know I myself have gone on the pages of users I have not heard of a few times, and the pages have been somewhat interesting.

Actually read all of what I wrote in regards to this. "Potential interest" is not a valid reason for keeping a page. Omega Tyrant 17:53, 31 May 2012 (EDT)

Again, comparing mainspace to userspace is a no-do. Smashtasm didn't deserve a place in the mainspace, because while potentially interesting, it would create big gaps in the Wiki, and would result in other articles being needed. But a userpage is all about' the user in question trying to interest the reader. That's what they are there for. They are fulfilling their purpose, so I still believe that the benefit of deleting these pages is not worth it, and I do not find an overall positive.

Also, I do not appreciate being told to "read all of what I wrote in regards to this", I read your argument in its entirety, and have considered everything you have written. Whether or not I agree with it is a different matter. Toast ltimatum 18:12, 31 May 2012 (EDT)

Find me another wiki that deletes userpages in this way and we can talk. Toomai Glittershine The Ghostbuster 18:16, 31 May 2012 (EDT)

I don't see anything wrong with those user pages. Reading the policies and putting my own opinions forward, we have no good reason to delete those pages. Protection of user pages under SW:NOT should be used for short cool downs; indefinite should only be for pages that are being constantly edited with no good information or vandalized. As for SW:NOT and its SmashArena implications, there is no punitive measures to that; it is only a guideline. Would we consider someone who only edits SmashArena and their user pages for SysOp? No. Does that mean we ban them or don't let them edit? I see no reason. None of these users come close to Doc King or Zeldasmash, and I only feel that short blocks were necessary there. Yes, ZS's user page is still protected, but that was an extreme case. And we didn't delete his page, we protected it.

In terms of these users, they hardly even have enough edits for us to make a determination that all they would never edit the main space. Look at most user contributions when they start out. It's almost all talk/user/forum edits. Then they start editing other pages once they feel more comfortable in the community. Sure, we get the occasional SSBC, but more often they either drop off the wiki themselves or move into becoming regular contributors. All that we do when we start jumping on users early is make them not want to make mainspace edits (or any edits here for that matter).

I'd also like to point out that nothing on those user pages is an actual problem for this wiki. We still have SmashPeter's page where he claims to be an SSB developer. While clearly crap, there is the simple fact that searching terms like developer on the whole wiki will give his page. Basically, the only times user pages should be deleted, in my opinion, are when they are patently false (people claiming to be devs) or of permabanned users where the page does nothing to document why they were banned (i.e. Comesindoves). Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 18:57, 31 May 2012 (EDT)

This suggestion and argument are full of terrible and I agree with Clarinet Hawk. Deleting these (and indeed nearly any) userpages is a waste of time for literally no gain. What seems to be more problematic to me is that "if these users could create and maintain a userspace, they were capable of being constructive editors to the SmashWiki. Thus offending users had their userspaces indefinitely locked until they shown an effort" somehow passed/passes for good reasoning, when in fact it's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. I also find conversations like this to be a problem. Let's focus on the actual problems? – Emmett 21:03, 31 May 2012 (EDT)

@Toast: Keeping a page because "it may be interesting to other users" is a no-do, regardless of what namespace it is in.

@Toomai: What other Wikis do is irrelevant to what we do and don't do. If you want to play that card, Mario Wiki completely restricts userpage creation until the user had their account for a week and made 10 mainspace edits. Implementing such here would completely prevent most non-constructive users from creating pages, and then the pages I suggested for deletion here wouldn't have existed in the first place. I wouldn't agree with just putting a straight implementation of what they do here, but it's certainly better than letting all these userpages from useless users run amok and unrestricted.

@ClarinetHawk: Of course we don't ban those users, we instead punish them by not allowing them to edit their userspace until they start being actual useful contributors. For your comparisons, Doc King is not relevant here; he never had a problem with not making an effort towards contributing constructively to the Wiki, his problem was being a disruptive user who repeatedly disregarded behavior policies. As for Zeldasmash, yeah he had a similar problem, though in a lesser form. Of course he edited his userspace a ton, but unlike these users, he did some constructive editing (or attempted to), rather than just do it once and never again, never try editing constructively at all, or just run off when he got his userpage finally locked (or when he was banned, as what could have befallen these users if userpage locking wasn't implemented instead).

As for the users not having enough contributions to determine they would never make a contribution to the mainspace, each user was given a few months after they joined. And after that, if they repeatedly just edited their userspace/Smash Arena/useless casual forums, then they had their userpage locked. Even after that, each user is told that their userpage will be unlocked once they show a legitimate effort towards being constructive. Only a few actually start making some constructive edits afterward (LightningBlue, Zeldasmash, Mastersword), the others ignored it and continued voting on Smash Arena or disappearing, and a couple even publicly announced leaving the Wiki as a reaction to it (Etbmax, HeidiHedgefox). Each user was given sufficient time to get comfortable with the Wiki, and the majority shown they had no real desire to actually help the Wiki.

For their existence being direct problems, no they're not really. But deleting them is a start towards getting rid of userpages of useless users (yeah, that term is harsh, but there's no better term to describe them), and showing that SmashWiki is not a place for people to come and dick around without being actually helpful. Simply, if users want to use the Wiki's space for their personal means, they have to do helpful stuff to earn it. Yeah, I'm going to bring up space. Emmett would always tell us how space doesn't matter on Wikia. But we're no longer on Wikia, we're an independent Wiki that must pay for server costs and space. Porplemontage currently does this for us, and while I'm unaware of the current exact costs of the Wiki nor his own personal wealth, I'm sure he would appreciate us not inflating the cost because we allow anyone who comes and make an account to use the Wiki as their personal profile. I'm aware that deleting these pages on the Wiki doesn't remove the data they use up, but certainly Porplemontage is capable of doing something to completely remove them?

@Emmett: A surge of users coming in that do nothing but edit their userpage and Smash Arena, and expect the Wiki to allow them uninhibited is a problem. I'm also in stark disagreement with what I said being "the stupidest thing". If a user is able to create and maintain a userspace, why are they unable to use that time elsewhere on the Wiki to help improve it? If a user could go on about their userpage about what a Sonic fan they are, they could certainly find something in the Sonic related articles to add/fix/etc. Even if their edits to the Sonic page do not help, it's at least an effort. Omega Tyrant 18:03, 1 June 2012 (EDT)

MarioWiki having a temporary roadblock is not what I'm looking for; one could make 10 edits which add whitespace and then do whatever on their userpage. Yes they block for excessive userpageness, but I'm looking for another wiki that outright says "Contribute or have your personal stuff deleted", because that sort of threat is what you're proposing as a precedent. You may not think that other wikis matter, but your line of thinking is what's lead to this mess in the first place.

To be frank I think you should can this while you still have the chance. All the staff who've posted here think this is a dumb idea and it looks like you're going to need indisputable proof that this is actively hurting the wiki before anyone else agrees with it.

Yes I'm keeping these comments short with minimal argument response. Toomai Glittershine The Trumpeteer 21:26, 1 June 2012 (EDT)