SmashWiki talk:Administrators' noticeboard

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 06:28, July 24, 2010 (UTC)

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

Help?

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 (talk • contribs) 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 17:56, 17 June 2011 (EDT)

Just because it's on a userpage does not mean spam is allowed. Omega Tyrant 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 ltimatum 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. Anontalk 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 ltimatum 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 ltimatum 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 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 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. MegaTron1XD 00:26, 29 June 2014 (EDT)

Protection?

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. INoMed ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 13:45, 20 October 2015 (EDT)

Only problem: Well-intentioned new users and IPs. They'll be left out. 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. Serpent∞King (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. Serpent∞King (talk) 14:16, 20 October 2015 (EDT)

Potential inappropriate username?

Failedabortion (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log · WHOIS) I'm not 100% on this so I'm putting it here, but this seems like an inappropriate username. Alex the Jigglypuff trainer 10:15, April 14, 2019 (EDT)

Rapid revert vandals

With the recent incident(s) with a particular vandal, I think it may be best to let these kinds of vandals (those who revert back to their edit as soon as possible) "win" for a bit, especially if there isn't someone online to block them. They want attention and are stalking the edit history, and by stalking the edit history ourselves to revert, they get that attention and get another opportunity. With the most recent incident, I let the edits sit for about 20 minutes. In that time they made less than 10 edits on about 4 pages. As soon as someone came online to "revert-on-sight", that quickly jumped up to over 50 edits in 10 minutes. They may hit more pages overall, but the edit history will be much cleaner and requires less effort. --CanvasK (talk) 09:55, May 7, 2022 (EDT)

That sounds like a terrible idea. Black Vulpine the 🦊Furry🐺. Furries make the internets go! :3 09:57, May 7, 2022 (EDT)

This is a valid strategy but whether it's better is up in the air, especially if the pages being vandalised are kind of important. I would not recommend it but I wouldn't tell anyone to stop doing it. Toomai Glittershine The Loony 09:59, May 7, 2022 (EDT)

The reason he stopped when his edits weren't reverted was because the page already looked like how he wanted it to look like. Every moment the page looks that way, a reader could encounter it, and this undermines the credibility of the site. The purpose of reverting vandalism on sight is to keep the pages the way they're supposed to be. A rapid back-and-forth of edits isn't as big a deal as a page staying vandalised for 20 minutes, because the edits are behind the scenes. The only circumstance in which not reverting the edits immediately is a good idea is when the edits are to things like user and talk pages, since these are far less visible and not of much importance to the average reader. Alex the Weeb 10:02, May 7, 2022 (EDT)

Understood. I've been a little deep in the "behind the scenes" side which is probably why I was focused on the edit spam. --CanvasK (talk) 10:16, May 7, 2022 (EDT)

I agree with Alex here, letting readers potentially see a vandalized page is a much more pressing issue than a vandal getting into a revert war with users. We want to minimize the amount of time a page is vandalized as much as possible. Omega Tyrant 12:56, May 7, 2022 (EDT)

Since IPs and non-autoconfirmed users can't edit this page...

So I had a private chat with an admin on Discord on how IPs/non-autoconfirmed users should notify the Wiki about any troublesome users, and we came to an agreement that the best way is for IPs/new users to ping an admin's talk page about the situation.

However, IPs and non-autoconfirmed users are not allowed to edit this page (for reasons I am well aware of, but we should still not ignore the IPs that are trustworthy), yet it does not give out any sort of advice on what they should do, so there should at least be a paragraph of that sort.

As I stated above, my suggestion is simply for an IP/new user to go to an admin's talk page, but I am curious if anyone else has better ideas. The Jacketed Terrapin 01:41, July 31, 2022 (EDT)

Bumping this. The Jacketed Terrapin 19:15, August 2, 2022 (EDT)

People should simply be reporting this stuff to the discord most of the time to guarantee much faster responses, which has no restrictions for people to join. Accessing the #smashwiki channel on it requires the contributor role that you must have an autoconfirmed account to be given barring some exceptions, but that doesn't stop someone from reporting vandals in just the #general channel. Omega Tyrant 18:24, August 23, 2022 (EDT)