UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/Alts

Administration Services — Protection. This page has been protected against editing. See the archive of recent actions or the Protections log.

Yes

I'm with Gage on this one (Gasp, WTF?) You can have all the various characters you like on UD, but here you can abuse ALTs in many, many ways. Not the least of which is abusing voting priviledges. It makes no sense to me at all why the same person should have several votes.. just because of their "other" personalities. Sorry, it really screws up the Wiki. Even if you have multiple personality disorder, you only deserve 1 vote. Try and imagine how many alternate accounts have affected voting success/outcomes of results.. and you might feel just a bit annoyed. MrAushvitz 16:27, 5 October 2006 (BST)

Using an alt to fraudulently vote is vandalism now. This policy does not make that any more true. This policy does nothing to make it easier to determine when fraudulent voting has taken place. Fraudulent voting is simply a scare tactic, used to sneak yet another way to intimidate authors into the rules. Don't be fooled. This has nothing to do with and does not change voting in anyway. Don't believe the hogwash! It is all misdirection. They tell you to watch your nose but this policy is aimed at your Socks. --Heavy Zed ^Socks! 19:27, 18 October 2006 (BST)

No

A much better system would be to establish a mandatory page (UDWiki:Moderation/Alternate User Register, for example) where people would be required to register their alternate accounts. As it is, this policy is too draconian. –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 23:42, 19 September 2006 (BST)

More red tape bob? I thought you hated that stuff! Why not just give them a chance to explain why they created the account, and allow them to keep it if their explanation is reasonable?--Gage 23:56, 19 September 2006 (BST)

Sounds good to me. But no alts is wrong. --Gold Blade 00:01, 20 September 2006 (BST)

I don't know how many people do this currently, so I want the option open.--Canuhearmenow ^Hunt! 00:04, 20 September 2006 (BST)

Yeah, you like your alts don't you Gold Blade?--Gage 00:28, 20 September 2006 (BST)

Why would we need to go through all that hassle? And how could we force people to reveal all of their alts, anyway? –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 00:31, 20 September 2006 (BST)

You aren't forcing them to reveal their alts. You just perform the Checkuser function and when you find a match you give them a chance to explain themselves. If they aren't trying to create an alt to be a bot to do some of the menial stuff on the wiki, or something of the sort, you just ban the account. Simple as that.--Gage 01:20, 20 September 2006 (BST)

CheckUser only stores data for the last two weeks. And don't you think it would be a little tedious to check every user we come across? Not to mention that two people could theoretically use the same IP address within a two week period and not be the same person. –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 02:02, 20 September 2006 (BST)

Well we have discovered several users with alternate accounts. Mia and Jjames and there are probably others. We will find them. This policy doesn't have anything to do with finding the users, just what to do with them once we do.--Gage 02:28, 20 September 2006 (BST)

Which is already dealt with by M/VB. If they abuse the voting process, or other such shit, the alt gets banned and a warning is added to the original, the same way it's always worked. This policy is simply reinventing the wheel. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 03:42, 20 September 2006 (BST)

No, this would address multiple wiki accounts that are not disruptive as well.--Gage 03:49, 20 September 2006 (BST)

Why would they be a problem? –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 05:07, 20 September 2006 (BST)

Because they are confusing and can be used in the sense that Jjames's is, to defame another group?--Gage 06:23, 20 September 2006 (BST)

Then that would count as being disruptive, no? Our provisions for M/B would come into effect. --MorthBabid 20:07, 5 October 2006 (BST)

Why would anyone need an alt? It doesn't make much sense to me. I'm in favor.--Steele Glovier 16:19, 20 September 2006 (BST)

My feeling would be that alts should be allowed, as long as they aren't used to cause disruption (such as Jjames's account is).--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 17:47, 20 September 2006 (BST)

I'm fine that version as well. It just gets maddening to have our group drug through the mud by jjames's alt. Makes the experience quite unenjoyable.--Steele Glovier 18:19, 20 September 2006 (BST)

Maybe we can use something like this on every alt account:

	Moderation Services — Known alt
	This User, UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/Alts, Is an alternate account of Amazing.

--Thari ^{TжFedCom is BFI!} 18:53, 20 September 2006 (BST)

I like that. If people are drama enough to use alts, let them parade their retardedness. Rheingold 06:05, 21 September 2006 (BST)

Hey, not all of use alts for drama! Hell, I've got one! It's Xoid. Nah, I'm kidding, it's actually Gage. Also Kevan. --Ron Burgundy 09:30, 24 September 2006 (BST)

Not to invoke Godwin's Law or anything, but the first thing that popped into my mind when I saw that was a hilariously tragic version of the Nazi's use of the Star of David to identify the Jews. :) The real problem ISN'T alt accounts: Its people who use alt accounts for BAD reasons. And those people are STOPPED or IDENTIFIED by their actions alone, NOT by their use of alts. We don't need this, its targeting a tool of the problem and not the problem ITSELF: People known as 'Jerks'. :) --MorthBabid 19:54, 5 October 2006 (BST)

I share a IP address with at least one other user. I'd rather not get branded as an alt, and I'm sure there are other users sharing IPs who feel the same. Banning problem alts is fine, but banning every alt account is unnecessary. -- Catriona McM 21:07, 24 September 2006 (BST)

To start with, I think if people who accually create multiple alts and abuse voting systems, cause havoc etc. are far and few between. There would be more a fallout with the people who innocently use alts, than with the troublemakers. And explaining why someone should have an extra alt is problematic; anyone willing to hide who they are on the wiki are probably also willing to lie about being someone else using the same IP address. It should be more the case that if someone is suspected of alt-abusing should be asked to explain themselves. Things get ugly, then limit the IP address to one account. If somebody else uses the same IP, then they have to sort it out with the abuser, hopefully before the address is limited. -- Shamus Oakshod 07:55, 15 October 2006 (BST)

Harmless Alts

I play four characters in Urban Dead (all in different quarters, before you stick a zerg-badge on me) - but only one of them is represented on the wiki. I was toying with the idea of creating another three accounts to represent my other characters. The only harm I can see in that is using up more space on the wiki.

If I get slapped with a "this is an alt of..." badge, then that might negatively impact my characters in-game - people might hold a grudge against me, instead of my characters, which goes against the idea of a role-playing game.

Of course, I wouldn't abuse those alts by using them as sock-puppets, and if I did, a mod could slap me down for it - but I see no need to ban wiki-alts entirely, or to name and shame them - that just seems horribly draconian, reactionary and negative.

--Funt Solo 14:57, 24 September 2006 (BST) (A character, in a game.)

Almost every user of UD has 2 or 3 characters. That's not negative, how would it be? Do as everyone elses, use an only account and speak from it.--Thari ^{TжFedCom is BFI!} 22:31, 26 September 2006 (BST)

i dont think this is such a good idea. many times alts are nessercy to inhance the ingame expirence. i have one name on the wiki for each charicter i have on urban dead. this way each of my alts plays "in charictor" on there respetive group pages. example: it wouldnt do to have a charicter named "death to zombies" try and sign up to an all zombie group.--ag 18:35, 5 October 2006 (BST)

What about alts used for different stories and journal postings? For people who have two characters in-game, and represent their different views? Or how would we REALLY prove that they are alt accounts, and not really just two different people who use the same set of IPs? Or one schizophrenic person? :) --MorthBabid 19:49, 5 October 2006 (BST)

There are basically two types of legit use of the Wiki - RP (for which alts are fine, probably even helpful) and administrative (for which alts are desctructive.) Instead of the alt tag, which identifies which user controls an alternate account, what about some sort of RP-only tag, that says "This account is only used for roleplaying"? That would keep PKers from being able to target all of a person's characters and provide separation between zombie and survivor characters run by the same player, but, at the same time, allow red flags to be raised if these characters were actually voting. Paul Brunner 16:34, 13 October 2006 (BST)

• Indeed. If this measure does end up passing, there isn't any reason we can make a 'Roleplaying Alt' system to be added to policy. --19:52, 15 October 2006 (BST)

Why not call it the Anti-jjames policy and be done with it?

Your bias on this is so clear I can see the stink lines, gage. Are you really that upset i got you kicked from ASS for unethical behvior? Or is it because I don't think Data is cool?Jjames 22:18, 26 September 2006 (BST)

You are not the only user with alts.--Thari ^{TжFedCom is BFI!} 22:26, 26 September 2006 (BST)

Gage mentions me several times as an example of an alt that should be banned even though it hasn't broken any rules. With his conduct in the past few days it should be clear his bias towards me.Jjames 22:29, 26 September 2006 (BST)

You are an example, but he only uses you to prove his point.--Thari ^{TжFedCom is BFI!} 22:33, 26 September 2006 (BST)

Then why am I his only example?Jjames 22:36, 26 September 2006 (BST)

Because he chose it to be? Really going for the straws here. And remember the below template --Karlsbad 23:16, 26 September 2006 (BST)

	Important to remember!
	Jjames aka "John James" has a long history of Sockpuppets.

You're template is now slanderous. You have absolutely no evidence that I am "john james" other than the fact that he used the same name I did on a different game. It's not exactly an uncommon name.Jjames 00:02, 27 September 2006 (BST)

Interesting. I prefer this one myself:

	Important to remember!
	Jjames has a history of Sockpuppets.

Well it's still an attack template made in bad faith by an impotent moderator, but at least it's not libelous.Jjames 01:35, 27 September 2006 (BST)

Did someone forget to continue their arguement because they realized they didn't have one, or because they were too busy whining about a template? --Karlsbad 01:43, 27 September 2006 (BST)

You argument is without merit "because he chose it to be"? Give me a break. What kind of facile logic is that? Of course he has a reason for it. And given his recent actions, that reason can easily be construed as bias. Regardless, this is a bad policy. You shouldn't be able to ban an alt on different grounds than any other user.Jjames 01:53, 27 September 2006 (BST)

• Regardless of if this IS a personalized issue: The fact remains that this policy, if passed, would affect EVERYONE. Try to keep the focus? Even if its been STARTED for personal reasons, its not just about a personal flamewar when it hits the Policy section. Mostly. :) --MorthBabid 19:51, 5 October 2006 (BST)

This policy is racist!

Not literally, but it uses the same false logic as the bills passed to go after undocumunted immigrants. They always talk about the risk of immigrants illegally voting, but there is never any evidence of this happening. Just like with alts. It is already against the rules to vote with an alt. This justification over a policy to get rid of alts is false.Jjames

God, shut up. How can you take a good point and make it sound so stupid? Take out your 'How to create drama 101' headline and just use your last two sentences and you would receive a lot more respect as a positive contributor around here. --Zod Rhombus 18:47, 18 October 2006 (BST)

Oh no! I am not respected as a positive contributer on the urban dead wiki?! Siucide is the only option!Jjames 09:15, 19 October 2006 (BST)