Terse and effective! —ǥrɩɳsɧƿoɲ 04:20, 22 November 2007 (CET)

And low in trans fats to boot! -- 04:30, 22 November 2007 (CET)

Not worth the minimal benefit. It is easy enough to remove votes and investigate sockpuppets. If we miss one (or a hundred, w/e), it is manageable. To paraphrase [someone], I'd rather a guilty man go free than an innocent man be sentenced. Preventing family/friends/co-workers/classmates from contributing, and doing something together, isn't worth this effort to limit the amount of users here. Ultimately, chasing away one or more of any user's associates will chase away that user as well. On an aside, limiting the number of users here could also restrict our advertising revenue, to keep the site running in the first place. This [proposal] would be an effective solution to sockpuppetry the way that genocide would be an effective solution to famine, tbh.
A fair comparison to your 'inevitable sockpuppetry' claim can be made concerninghe human Y chromsome (the one that makes you a man). People used to be believe that it contained the determinant of aggression (which has been disproved; females can be as aggressive as males, though expressing their aggression less often in a physical way), and some had theorized that by eliminating the Y chromosome, we would end all violent crime in the world (We'd also exterminate humanity, but they didn't know this yet). Your idea is similar; the 'one account per IP' idea would be like removing the Y chromosome to these older scientists. (P.S. Was this ever made into a movie???)
All sockpuppetry couldn't be prevented with this policy (eg. a user could set-up multiple accounts through multiple IPs); we'd still have to correct it the good, old-fashioned way (policing). I don't see this ever getting endorsed by the site, or ever getting my support. It's one monster truck of an idea though. =) - Kowal Krowman {{sysop}} 07:57, 22 November 2007 (CET)
The problem is people like Kylegarra and his "wife". This would still reduce sockpuppet or sockpuppet-like troubles that we have. However, this should probably be merged in with PvX:DIS. The point still stands however, that 1 account per IP is a good idea. Sockpuppets or not, they act like sockpuppets because people are more inclined to listen to their family members than anyone here. It goes something like this:
Person 1: "Can you please rate my build high?"
Family member of Person 1: "Oh, of course! 5-5-5 lols kk i r winrar."
Boom. Sock puppetry. And now the quality of PvXwiki goes down the tubes by getting shit like Build:R/D Dust Tank rated. —ǥrɩɳsɧƿoɲ 17:55, 22 November 2007 (CET)
Yeah, I know the problem (personally, see his and my talk page). The problem isn't site-breaking, and multiple accounts per IP 'sockpuppetry' isn't what is keeping the site quality low. The line you are drawing to that build is a pretty weak argument; that is a trash build bound to be deleted, with an average rating of 1.9. The build never got vetted, the large majority of its ratings were very low. The bad ratings are easy to remove, and with the admin noticeboard and the availability of a few of us admins, it never slides under the radar. It is an isolated incident. It is not a site-wide problem, or a representation of one, that merits such a heavy-handed site-wide policy. - Kowal Krowman {{sysop}} 21:30, 22 November 2007 (CET)


This policy is simply a silly suggestion. While i see and respect its purpose, i not only doubt its effectiveness, but also the feasability of implementation. For example, will we have to register accounts to an IP address? If so, then what if we arent at the computer that we registered on, can we not use our account? Will our account be stuck where we made it? If we don't have to register, then how will it be regulated. If i log into my account on 2 seperate IP adresses, will my account be registered to both. If i log onto my brothers computer and he decides to use the wiki someday, will he be unable to create an account on that IP since i used mine. So i ask, how will this be enforeable. In addition, i think simple enforcement should be effective and this is unneeded. There are people who share computers, and this is decidedly a disadvantage. How will this interact with school computers. Would i be unable to use my account at school or in a library if someone else had previously used an account there? Just curious.Bob fregman 20:53, 23 November 2007 (CET)

Admins can check anyone's IP after one contribution. Registered accounts are totally unfeasible (lol dynamic IP). -- 03:53, 26 November 2007 (CET)

So Edit

We are using lightsabers to cut our hair? =\ -- Armond WarbladeArmond sig image{{sysop}} 10:06, 24 November 2007 (CET)

Of course. Clean cut every time. — Teh Uber Pwnzer 03:44, 26 November 2007 (CET)

Implications Edit

The implications that users may not log in from library computers and other public terminals (netcafe are popular in Asia) should be spelled out, IMHO, to forestall potential issues. Also no dynamic IPs from AOL or other ISPs are allowed.

Or alternately, allow a means for normal users to check if the IP they are currently using has been affiliated with an account so they don't violate the policy. That way if I'm on a dynamic IP and someone else has already used this IP for an account, I can know to try and get a new IP from my ISP or get an open proxy to find an unused one. - 01:32, 27 November 2007 (CET)

oh no ur on to me ??!?!!?!?!?!?!?!?!!!!????!?!?!?!!?!?!??!??!??!??!?!?!??!?!??!?!??!?!?!??!??!??!?!??!?!??!??--«º¤¥Ω☼Vørråx☼Ω¥¤º» 01:37, 27 November 2007 (CET)

Community content is available under CC-BY-NC-SA 2.5 unless otherwise noted.