UDWiki:Administration/Policy Discussion/Alts

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Padlock.png Administration Services — Protection.
This page has been protected against editing. See the archive of recent actions or the Protections log.

This policy would ban the use of alternate accounts on the wiki except in cases where a need to use an alternate account can be shown to be neccesary. The alternate account would be permabanned, and the main account would receive their next warning/ban that they deserve according to M/G if they had used the account in any fraudulent or deceptive means. If no wrong doing had taken place, then the main account would receive a polite warning to please not create any more alternate accounts.

Alternate accounts are disruptive in every sense of the word. They can subvert the democratic process of voting, and are disruptive frequently on pages such as M/VB, M/D and M/A. They need to go.--Gage 05:44, 15 October 2006 (BST)

Voting Section

Voting Rules
Votes must be numbered, signed, and timestamped. They can take one of two forms:
  • # comments ~~~~
    or
  • # ~~~~

Votes that do not conform to the above will be struck by a sysop.

The only valid voting sections are For and Against. If you wish to abstain from voting, do not vote.

For

  1. No surprise here.--Gage 05:47, 15 October 2006 (BST)
  2. Fuck. Sock. Pupeteers.--Thari TжFedCom is BFI! 05:49, 15 October 2006 (BST)
  3. Approved by me....now...where's my approve stamp? Ah....Here it is! Axe Hack Approved --Axe Hack 05:50, 15 October 2006 (BST)
  4. Jump on the Modwagon... Conndrakamod T CFT 05:59, 15 October 2006 (BST)
  5. I have a good many reasons why I view this as the most practical solution. Will outline on the talk page at earliest convenience if requested. –Xoid M•T•FU! 06:06, 15 October 2006 (BST)
  6. Tra la la --CaptainM 06:25, 15 October 2006 (BST)
  7. I'm not too crazy about this policy but the last few weeks have been utterly absurd. -- Alan Watson T·RPM 11:55, 15 October 2006 (BST)
  8. I'll give this my stamp of approval. Say no to sockpuppets! Pillsy FT 12:32, 15 October 2006 (BST)
    One man, one vote. Bubba 17:12, 15 October 2006 (BST) Changed my mind. The reason is that I think there are two issues here. First, I think users should be able to have different accounts for in character role playing (such as reports from the field). BUT, I don't think they should be able to vote with more than one account. We should draft a policy that explicitly addresses the latter issue. A good template we could use is on wikiquote [1]. It specifically addresses the issue of sockpuppet voting. Bubba 19:56, 27 October 2006 (BST)
  9. Yes - thing's like Mia's attempts to avoid being impersonated (?) should be allowed under the good reason clause. --Darth Sensitive Talk W! 01:49, 16 October 2006 (BST)
  10. Ain't already implemented? -Certified=Insane☭ 03:10, 16 October 2006 (BST)
  11. I have three alt accounts on this wiki (that haven't been banned for one reason or another) that I use as name place holders. This policy would have them banned and me vandal warned. Screw that. It was pointed out to me that this would be an okay reason, so I have no issues with this. --SirensT RR 03:15, 16 October 2006 (BST)
  12. nzag1971 10:58, 17 Oct 2006 (UTC+3)
  13. No reason for each person to have more than one voice/vote. Dading2 19:20, 17 October 2006 (BST)
  14. alts in the game make sense, alts on the wiki is just stupid. Bullgod 20:49, 19 October 2006 (BST)
  15. DJSMITHCDF 21:55, 19 October 2006 (BST)
  16. For, as long as it's allowed when needed.--J Muller 00:10, 21 October 2006 (BST)
  17. Cyberbob  Talk  04:22, 22 October 2006 (BST)
  18. --Funt Solo 22:42, 23 October 2006 (BST)
  19. I think it is O.K. for people on Urban Dead to have more than one character but I think they should only be allowed one account on the wiki--Mrmooge88 21:00, 24 October 2006 (BST)
  20. Atticus Rex AMP ' T 15:20, 26 October 2006 (BST) ETA: Would a second sig that references a different in-game character cause impersonation problems? If my alt were to apply to the DHPD, for example, couldn't I just make a sig for use on DHPD pages that uses his name instead of Atticus and links to the sub-userpage with his character data? A mouseover would show that it's me. The only way I could see it would be a problem would be if someone created a wiki account under my alt's name. </devil's advocate>-- Atticus Rex AMP ' T 00:04, 28 October 2006 (BST)
    That's totally allowable and has been done before. The scenario you raised is a pain to deal with, but no more than so than other users who have edited their alt's User: page, etc, etc. –Xoid M•T•FU! 09:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  21. One account is all that one should ever need. --Niilomaan GRR!•M! 08:40, 27 October 2006 (BST)
  22. As Niilomaan. --Abi79 AB 15:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Against

  1. For the right to be someone else... and the same person! Shamus Oakshod 08:45, 15 October 2006 (BST)
  2. These are all valid arguements for how destructive alt accounts can be, but we shouldn't pretend that ALL alt accounts are used this way. Only a few very people would dream of doing such things. There HAS to be a better way than a 'one or nothing' rule. Can't we simply revoke specific accounts ability to vote by changing the platform for our voting systems, rather than completly ban the use of alts? --MorthBabid 19:51, 15 October 2006 (BST)
    Change the platform? How? –Xoid S•T•FU! 03:59, 16 October 2006 (BST)
    Don't know if this is what MorthBabid had in mind, but there were proposals on the discussion page to add a template to alt accounts. Maybe requiring a tag on the signature would be even better; the accounts could be used for roleplaying and the like, but not for voting. Paul Brunner 15:24, 17 October 2006 (BST)
    Heh, it just hit me: This vote is topsy-turvy. If there were people who abuse the alts in voting... then why hasn't this vote been overwhelmingly lost? In fact, if this action passes, it almost proves that it isn't that major a problem, and everyone would lose their alts, roughly speaking, needlessly. In fact, I'm confused to the point of incoherance. Time to go zombie for a while... Shamus Oakshod 12:10, 16 October 2006 (BST)
  3. What will happen to my alternate accounts? I'd hate for people like Xoid and Wes Mantooth to go inactive.  :( --Ron Burgundy 04:29, 16 October 2006 (BST)
  4. This just makes more vandals out of dozens or who knows hundreds of good faith authors for no need. There are plenty of vandals now. There is no need to make more. None of the flourishing wiki out there need this policy and neither do we. --Max Grivas JG / M.F.T. 04:45, 16 October 2006 (BST)
  5. nay Asheets 19:30, 16 October 2006 (BST)
  6. Worse than the HolocaustJjames 22:44, 16 October 2006 (BST)
  7. There's totally legitimate reasons to have an alt account. For example, if your main account got bogged down in drama, you might want to make a fresh start with an alt. Also, I don't think it's worthwhile to give people 'polite warnings' for having an alt if they aren't doing any harm with it. --Toejam 23:04, 16 October 2006 (BST)
  8. First they wanted gold in the basket now they want the socks off our feet. Stop them before they eat the wiki! Vote Against! --Heavy Zed Socks! 05:08, 17 October 2006 (BST)
  9. Alternate accounts for roleplaying are part of the fun of the wiki, and I'd hate to see them go. Paul Brunner 15:24, 17 October 2006 (BST)
  10. This policy is too draconian. The person alerting the community about the alt should have to show that some abuse had actually taken place, rather than banning all alts in general. Users whould have to justify themselves until they actually do something wrong, and I don't think that the act of owning and alt is inherently wrong. I'd prefer a policy that just banned 'abuse', and explicitly listed accepted genuine reasons for having alts. armareum 15:35, 18 October 2006 (BST)
  11. My brother and I both play Urban Dead and we both use this wiki. Because of that, we have the same IP Address, this policy would make it so both of us would be banned or warned. Tirak McAlister 11:12, October 18 2006 (EST)
    No, it would not. Read the policy, the very first line reserves the right of IPs to have alts in those sorts of situations. Also check the 'Scrapped' ruling under M/VB. -- Alan Watson T·RPM 19:51, 18 October 2006 (BST)
  12. against, i don't have any alts and i don't participate on the wiki so much, but i like to watch, and i am always in favor of alts.hvincent 03:01, 19 October 2006 (BST)
  13. Against. I have alts that I play and use on the wiki; I wouldn't conscience voting with all of them, however. I think it would be better worded to say "undisclosed" alts. If a user said "I'm also X, Y, and Z," they should not be punished. Daniel Hicken 09:16, 19 October 2006 (BST)
  14. Against I agree with everyone else whos against. We're allowed multiple characters in different areas, if you need to use only 1 voice to represent all the characters in 1 go, you can end up being confusing. And multiple voices for the same character? Well, you can do it in real life on the internet, why not on Urban Dead?!? Its more realistic Theseveredband 2:40 (BST)
  15. Heck I can't deicde where my vote belongs, for while I agree with what people in for say about not needing alt accounts on wiki I always thought that if your account was perma banned then you should be able to create an alternative account and try again- you know voice your opinions and make sensible edits etc., but then I see the fact that it could easilly be abused. Blah this is quite confusing me. --MarieThe Grove 12:23, 24 October 2006 (BST)
  16. For no paticular reason, I'm against this. I don't really see it as as much of a threat.--Labine50 MHG|MEMS 18:48, 24 October 2006 (BST)
  17. Against I don't see a need for it.--Blood Panther 23:42, 24 October 2006 (BST)
    Against - Anyone sufficiently problematic would find a way around whatever you do anyway; trying to 'ban' alternate accounts would serve no purpose except to antagonise them even more. Why bother --ReeToric 04:11, 25 October 2006 (BST)
    Banned users and sockpuppets can't vote.--Gage 20:08, 27 October 2006 (BST)
  18. Against - since the wiki includes various "in character" entries it is entirely reasonable that someone have a wiki account for each game account, and even wiki accounts that don't exist as in-game characters. --Lehk 05:01, 25 October 2006 (BST)
  19. Against - I have multiple characters running in multiple suburbs, some affiliated with groups, some not. If I have to report all news items under the same name, it will corrupt the game identity of the character I report with. If I'm not in Molebank, I shouldn't be reporting from Molebank. That other guy should. --Mac Howard 05:36, 26 October 2006 (BST)
  20. Against - Same reason as Mac... I use Captain Flutergork for all of my Yagoton-related posts, and I'd like to continue. --Pinata 16:12, 27 October 2006 (BST)
  21. Against - The real issue we need to address is sock puppet voting. I prefer a policy drafted like this one [2] on wikiquote. Mac Howard has good reasons for multiple identities, but no user should be able to vote with more than one identity. Bubba 18:57, 27 October 2006 (BST)
  22. Against Too much effort to be worth bothering. Catch alts when they cause problems not for the hell of it. More mod powertrips aren't really needed. --Rogue 05:04, 28 October 2006 (BST)
Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=UDWiki:Administration/Policy_Discussion/Alts&oldid=1370903"