Forum:Abuse of the Wikian title

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Forums: Yew Grove > Abuse of the Wikian title
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 21 February 2018 by Liquidhelium.

Hi everyone,

Last night User:manhattan2 initiated the following conversation on Discord with one of our admins, User:Kelsey:


SYJBJ4P.png xMzcpPQ.png

As a result of this, we have checked IPs used by manhattan2 against those used by other nominees for the Wikian title. This uncovered that User:Annikaa2, who has a current nomination for the title, has made a couple of edits from a IP used by manhattan2. Manhattan2 has previously talked of Annikaa2 as being his girlfriend, but has said that they do not live near to each other. This would suggest that when manhattan2’s IP was used to make edits on the Annikaa2 account, that it was manhattan2 was using the account to edit on her behalf. Of more concern was manhattan2’s edit to Annikaa2’s nomination which added a secondary RSN for the title to be granted to. This RSN belongs to a low level RS account that appears to have no obvious connection to Annikaa2’s RS account. Given his following conversation about wanting to sell the title, it seems that his intention may have been for this account to be granted the title in order for the account to be sold.

Following this incident I would like to make a couple of proposal to prevent the title from being abused:

Block User:manhattan2

Manhattan2 has repeatedly shown that he has no respect for the wiki’s community and policies; breaking RS:UTP and making poor decisions like this one, disregarding advice given by other editors (more fully detailed in comments on RuneScape:Requests for adminship/Manhattan2). Attempting to sell the title is a massive breach of community trust and extremely detrimental to the wiki. Though he has made good edits, manhattan2 has also had a large negative impact on the community through the drama he has caused. This latest episode goes to show that he cannot be trusted and that this problem is only going to worsen if he continues to be part of this community. I therefore propose that manhattan2 is indefinitely blocked from the wiki, and community features including the Discord server and Clan Chat.


Support – as proposer. Magic logs detail.pngIsobelTalk page 13:26, February 14, 2018 (UTC)

Support - Manhattan is sort of like Mol in many senses. He’s helpful to have around, however his behaviour and the things he has took part in are not things we should seek to associate ourselves with. He has, on multiple occasions, been confrontation and aggressive towards other users on Discord and the wiki, he has engaged in activities involving private servers and encouraged other people to do the same, and is now taking part in what is essentially real-world trading for the title, which is against not only Jagex’s rules, but our rules too as a result. I think it makes sense to nip this in the bud before there are more incidents like this. jayden 13:40, February 14, 2018 (UTC)

Support - Do i atleast get a cool tag on my profile when it happens 67 kc vitalismanhattan'Ironman btw 13:50, February 14, 2018 (UTC)

Support block - Go fuck yourself, manhatten, with that kind of attitude. This isn't a joke, you broke our trust. That's not a thing to beat around the bush for. 7kyt1iT.gif --WINE OF GOOD HEALTH (Actually Stinko) 02:44, February 16, 2018 (UTC)

Support - Reading his conversation made me angry. Deceitful and distasteful. Not much else to say at the moment. Pernix cowl detail.png MAGE-KIL-R (Talk)Zaros symbol.png 13:53, February 14, 2018 (UTC)

Support - The title exists as an incentive and good will to those who edit. Him abusing it and also trying to justify it is wrong and goes against what the title is there for, not to mention it breaking rules. Along with the other drama caused, I think the negatives outweigh the positives despite all of his good edits. --Talk to Kelsey 14:49, February 14, 2018 (UTC)

Support - As per everyone else here, the title is meant to be an incentive to edit the wiki, with the idea of selling it just going against that completely. pjJ4pBM.png Abyssal vine whip.png 15:08, February 14, 2018 (UTC)

Support - So apparently we don't actually have a policy against people editing on others' accounts, which is a shame, since it would deal with this situation immediately. The closest I could find is RS:HONESTY which has a clause about not misrepresenting your identity, though it doesn't seem like the intention was to cover account sharing. I agree that selling the title is a massive breach in trust. --LiquidTalk 15:09, February 14, 2018 (UTC)

Support - People get the title for their hard work not the hard work of others. Even if I were to ignore the fact that it wasn't their work. You are the only person reaping benefits of this. No one else. You state that you need gold. Why not make it on your own? You are selling the wiki out for your own personal benefit. It diminishes the value of the title. All this has done is shown that you wanted to deceive the wiki, its community, and you wanted an admin to knowingly let you do this. Even asking them to turn a blind eye to something that would be detrimental to the community. You also state that if more people got it in game then more people would edit. I think that is untrue more people would just start trying to buy it off of people. pWkk5s5.pngConstitution.png 15:30, February 14, 2018 (UTC)

Support - mostly per Jayden. Good editor with a not-so-good personality. User talk:InvalidCards.png: RS3 Inventory image of User talk:InvalidCards InvalidCards Special:Contributions/InvalidCards.png: RS3 Inventory image of Special:Contributions/InvalidCards 15:52, February 14, 2018 (UTC)

Support - We've had previous users who make decent edits but are abusive get blocked before - Manhattan is not an exception. HaidroH rune.pngEagle feather 3.pngCandle (blood red).png 1XqyDNM.png Crystal triskelion fragment 3.pngHazelmere's signet ring.png 20:13, February 14, 2018 (UTC)

Support - I hate to stray a bit from relevance but this is absoLUTELY a long time coming. It’s about time. I knew about his poor character before I even met him, and then upon having met him I witnessed crudeness all around before he came to the wiki. From day one guesting in the cc he was bad news. And I know how vocal I was about it to some people (you know who you are). Pity he had to be tolerated for this long, but I’m glad this is happpening. Absolutely shameless.  Panjy16  20:45, February 14, 2018 (UTC)

Support - Per Jayden. Farming-icon.png Salix (Talk) Prifddinas lodestone icon.png 22:35, February 14, 2018 (UTC)

Block manhattan2 - I won't delve into detail too much but he tried to convice to break the wiki rules and the TOS and therefore will likely attempt to use "the thing", I already warned the LORD about this incident. Now regarding about selling title, four letter: N.O.P.E, this this title obviouisly deflect our contribution to the society and is a decoration to show our importance among the average player that edate in his mom basement while complaining that using wiki is for retard (yes, I once saw that argument). Also selling it would directly break the TOS. 1wDmkih.png  Manpaint of the RPU (t)(c) 23:00, February 14, 2018 (UTC)

Support - ... and did we ever put in place a way to strip the title? As long as it happens very rarely and we discuss the terms case-by-case with CM, it seems reasonable to me. --Saftzie (talk) 23:29, February 14, 2018 (UTC)

Shauny was pretty adamant that he didn't want to go down the route of removing titles. However, if there is enough support we could at least ask about removal for this case. Magic logs detail.pngIsobelTalk page 10:15, February 15, 2018 (UTC)

Support - Manhattan has long showed disrespect for our rules, and frankly, their dishonest behaviour won't be missed. --dDbvitC.pngScuzzy Betahib8CAd.png 02:24, February 15, 2018 (UTC)

Support - Everybody's said everything already What I've done Ciphrius Kane Talk 02:46, February 15, 2018 (UTC)

Initiate block now - Let the discussion be for how long the block lasts, but let's at least begin properly. The guilt is not in doubt. Degenret01 (talk)

Support - The only thing I really have to add that hasn't been said already is that if Jagex Moderators were to find out about this (and they will), they would likely revoke the Wikian book, and possibly the Wikian title from all recipients. -- F-Lambda (talk) 04:10, February 15, 2018 (UTC)

Support - Per many people above. In fact, I would support the block based only upon the fact that selling accounts is against Jagex rules, and ours. Not to mention this goes completely against the values of our community, and is a complete lack of respect for those individuals who earn the title.  RS AdvLogMyles Prower  Talk 04:22, February 15, 2018 (UTC)

Support - It seems rather disturbing that you'll abuse a content given to us by Jagex. You decide to use this as a way to benefit yourself and not the community (selling the title and you keep the gold). I don't see what's so hard to get the wikian title itself as I think the requirements are very easy to achieve, especially during updates when new content is release. You'll find lots of things to improve on. And the Wiki will be impacted. If you end up selling the title to anyone, then they might start wearing that title and do really stupid things. I cannot say that everyone will do that, but can you guarantee everyone will NOT do that? Santa hat.png Powers38 おはようヾ(´・ω・`) 05:54, February 15, 2018 (UTC)

Bad actors ruin nice things Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 20:23, February 15, 2018 (UTC)

Support - Per everyone Superiosity the WikianQuick chat button.png : Sup 11:04, February 19, 2018 (UTC)

Withdraw title nomination for User:Annikaa2

Given her involvement in this incident, and potential sharing of the wiki account for the purpose of increasing edits, I do not think that User:Annikaa2 should be granted the title. I propose that the current nomination is withdrawn, and that Annikaa2 is not granted the title.


Support – as proposer. Magic logs detail.pngIsobelTalk page 13:26, February 14, 2018 (UTC)

Comment - Given that Manhattan has said before that he doesn’t live with his girlfriend, and that she lives on the other side of the world, it seems odd that both accounts share the same IP in some edits. jayden 13:40, February 14, 2018 (UTC)

When have I ever talked about her besides in private conversations lol did those get leaked too 67 kc vitalismanhattan'Ironman btw 13:51, February 14, 2018 (UTC)
The point is that it’s what you said yourself, regardless of who you said it to. If you make it clear that you don’t live in the same location as this person, and then some of her edits originate from the same IP, it looks fishy and only adds to the concern displayed when you brought up to an admin that you intend to sell the title to people. We don’t allow sock puppets here, and you using multiple accounts is sockpuppeting. jayden 13:58, February 14, 2018 (UTC)
Did kelsey leak private conversations i had about annika? 67 kc vitalismanhattan'Ironman btw 14:10, February 14, 2018 (UTC)
You've brought her up to more than one person. Nobody "leaked" conversations - this is going off the fact you have said before that you met in-game and do not live with each other, which is confirmed by the fact that her edits are from two completely different locations, one of which is yours. I know you think it's unfair that the proposal has been made to withdraw the nomination, but your actions reflect on other people. This repercussion is only being considered as a result of you editing with the account. You need to understand that talking about selling the title, while there is a current nomination for your long distance girlfriend who has shared your IP, is not a good look and will make people doubt the authenticity of the edits. I'm going to change my comment here from a solid oppose to just a comment, because I will give you the benefit of the doubt and believe you, but whether other people will do the same is up to their judgement. jayden 14:33, February 14, 2018 (UTC)
Actually if you go through every single edit I've made you will find that they've been made from different IP addresses because I'm from, and study, in two different countries and travelled between them since the time I created my wiki account. Annikaa2 (talk) 17:45, February 14, 2018 (UTC)
67 kc vitalismanhattan'Ironman btw 14:49, February 14, 2018 (UTC)

Oppose - I made literally 1 edit on her account and Delraaz is her Ironman. 67 kc vitalismanhattan'Ironman btw 13:44, February 14, 2018 (UTC)

This is according to you. You are not trustworthy; it might be her own account, it might not. Perhaps she was unaware that you edited on her wiki account, but there's nothing really to support that. As I said, I'm not willing to trust the title to someone who is closely associated with you. Anyone who has the title represents the wiki on some level, and given your history of trying to pressurise people you know into doing questionable things I don't want the title to be given to someone who could be put into that position on future, and who is likely to be influenced in such a way due to their personal relationship with you. Magic logs detail.pngIsobelTalk page 15:40, February 14, 2018 (UTC)
Just because we're together doesn't mean he "pressurises" me and that shouldn't be a reflection of who I am as an individual. I don't think that my personal relationship with him should have anything to do with this. Yes he introduced me to editing the wiki, I didn't even know how to begin doing something like this before I met him. As manhattan told you in game, Delraaz is my ironman. I used to have an ironman but then I un-ironmanned it, and then when I met manhattan I decided to create one again so that we had things to do together since he didn't really play his main much. But soon after we both took a sort of break from Runescape, and then my bond ran out and I haven't bothered to buy another one since, and the only thing I really did on that account was use the things in the Grand Exchange for about a day during the Christmas event. That doesn't mean I don't intend to eventually play it, but I have gotten back to school since then and I've been busy. But for all I care, don't give her the title, that's completely inconsequential. Annikaa2 (talk) 17:45, February 14, 2018 (UTC)
Whether or not he does it to you I don't know for sure. I know that's something he's done to friends before. I don't know you and I don't see much reason to trust you either. It goes without saying that someone is likely to listen to their boyfriend over the concerns of a wiki community that they're new to if they're put in the situation of being asked to do something questionable. I'd rather be safe than sorry and withdraw the nomination for now. Magic logs detail.pngIsobelTalk page 19:37, February 14, 2018 (UTC)
This was probably what he meant by "selling the title," i.e., editing on another's behalf for money so they get the title. So should we CheckUser every candidate now? I doubt the concept of selling the title is going to go away. --Saftzie (talk) 23:26, February 14, 2018 (UTC)

Soft support - I'm split on this decision because the majority of the edits do come from her, however as Jayden said, his actions have consequences on the people around them, and this is one of those consequences. --Talk to Kelsey 14:49, February 14, 2018 (UTC)

Cautious oppose - Assuming the "literally 1 edit" bit is true, of course. I really don't like "guilt by association." The other edits that she made are still good edits and I don't think it's fair to punish her for someone else's actions. I mean, sharing accounts is bad, etc, but I'm not going to pretend that having knowledge of a significant other's passwords is uncommon in life. For all we know, she could not even be aware of that edit made on her account. Should the proposal to block manhattan2 pass, since blocks are applied to the user and not to a specific account, if there's evidence of account sharing, then action can be taken. But at the end of the day I'm not comfortable with the "guilt by association" argument. --LiquidTalk 14:55, February 14, 2018 (UTC)

Neutral - I think that Liquid has made good points when it comes to guilt by association. If we were to deny her the petition on the basis of another persons actions then I think that sets a bad precedent. If she had no knowledge then we should not punish her just because someone else did something on her account without her permission. Considering we have no official policy on people editing on other peoples accounts which should be made, I think we are in the situation where we should assume that she had no knowledge. We could put a hold on the ironman account until we see the outcome of this. But her main I feel should not be hindered by it. pWkk5s5.pngConstitution.png 15:23, February 14, 2018 (UTC)

- Agree with this. Hold off on the ironman, she doesnt even play it. 67 kc vitalismanhattan'Ironman btw 15:37, February 14, 2018 (UTC)
A precursor to my being neutral is that it comes to light and we are definitively sure that all but one edit came from her. If anything else is true than it is a strong support. pWkk5s5.pngConstitution.png 15:43, February 14, 2018 (UTC)

Soft oppose - per Liquid - the amount of edits made by manhattan vs those actually contributed by Annikaa is minimal. I don't see a good reason to end the nomination prematurely simply because of the fact that she is manhattan's girlfriend. I do not believe these edits were made in bad faith or for the purpose of farming edits to get the title. User talk:InvalidCards.png: RS3 Inventory image of User talk:InvalidCards InvalidCards Special:Contributions/InvalidCards.png: RS3 Inventory image of Special:Contributions/InvalidCards 15:52, February 14, 2018 (UTC)

Support - I honestly don't care about the the title all that much, so if you wish to withdraw my nomination if that will appease you, go ahead. Or if you think I shouldn't get it on my ironman, that's completely fine too and that makes sense considering I haven't even really played it since making it (although as I mentioned above I do wish to eventually). I do find it extremely unfair though, and denying someone something that they worked for merely due to association (referring to the screenshot manhattan sent where Isobel says she wouldn't want me to receive the title because I'm his girlfriend) isn't a great image for the wiki. Maybe if I've done questionable things in the past then you could justify it but I haven't. Annikaa2 (talk) 17:45, February 14, 2018 (UTC)

You say you haven't done questionnable things in the past, do you count RWT as part of this? --Talk to Kelsey 17:56, February 14, 2018 (UTC)
I have never RWT'ed, I admit I talked about it but never carried it out. People talk about the potential of doing things like this all the time. Was it something I would seriously have done? In all honesty I probably would have chickened out way before it could ever have been an actual possibility. As I told you, I'm far more concerned about my account getting banned - I don't care about gp but I have had this account for over 11 years and I care about that. Annikaa2 (talk) 18:54, February 14, 2018 (UTC)
Just something regarding the screenshot manhattan posted here - a single individual isn't representative of everyone's views. That's why we have threads like these. jayden 18:12, February 14, 2018 (UTC)
Editing my initial opposition - Can I change my stance and say that I don't want the title anymore? So even if the nomination process was to continue, I'd like to change my mind about wanting to receive it. Editing the wiki stopped being about wanting to get a shiny new title and became something I did/probably will still do when I don't feel like playing the game or notice something off while using the wiki for myself. Titles are nice and all, relatively rarer titles are nicer, but it doesn't affect me in any way whatsoever, so if I can I withdraw my nomination myself. Annikaa2 (talk) 20:09, February 14, 2018 (UTC)

Soft oppose per Liquid. And if we're voting on something like this I think the number of edits made from Manhattan's IP should be made public since it seems directly relevant. Slayer-icon.png Gangsterls Divination-icon.png talk 19:39, February 14, 2018 (UTC)

Withdraw the nomination for now, allow user to have another one later - Sounds like the most reasonable thing in this situation... HaidroH rune.pngEagle feather 3.pngCandle (blood red).png 1XqyDNM.png Crystal triskelion fragment 3.pngHazelmere's signet ring.png 20:13, February 14, 2018 (UTC)

Comment - Annikaa2 has indicated that she no longer wants the title. As a result, I'll withdraw the nomination. However, as this thread has not yet been up for a week, discussion may continue here to indicate whether, if at some point the nomination re-occurs in the future, we shouldn't allow the nomination to take place. jayden 20:15, February 14, 2018 (UTC)

Withdraw but allow renomination If a nomination were to take place in the future, I feel the nomination should be allowed. Then at that point, the community can support or oppose her nomination as is done with every nomination for the title. It is likely that opinions such as the ones expressed above will almost certainly be a part of that discussion. Pernix cowl detail.png MAGE-KIL-R (Talk)Zaros symbol.png 20:26, February 14, 2018 (UTC)

Support - Per Haidro  Panjy16  20:50, February 14, 2018 (UTC)

Neutral - Annikaa has already withdrawn, but I wanted to state that account sharing is bad, even if it was just one edit possibly without her knowledge. Just the fact that someone else has access to your account is bad. The edits themselves are fine though, which is why I supported the nomination in the first place. Farming-icon.png Salix (Talk) Prifddinas lodestone icon.png 22:35, February 14, 2018 (UTC)

Do not allow reapplication --dDbvitC.pngScuzzy Betahib8CAd.png 02:24, February 15, 2018 (UTC)

Allow renomination in future - If we're still in doubt, we just oppose What I've done Ciphrius Kane Talk 02:46, February 15, 2018 (UTC)

Allow reapplication - Getting involved with an ill-mannered person is not a reason to permanently ban an user for her later commitment (if available). If she wishes to apply again, we should do a typical, unbiased assessment later on. Rewlf2 05:21, February 15, 2018 (UTC)

Neutral - Per Ciphrius above, I would say that the best course of action is to deny the applicaiton for the time being (although if it was withdrawn, even better) and reconsider in the future if there is ever a new nomination. However, I don't have all the facts on who-did-what-on-whose-account etc, so I really can't personally support or oppose on this.  RS AdvLogMyles Prower  Talk 04:22, February 15, 2018 (UTC)

Comment - Having experienced being fucked up due to another person's action, I want to say that I believe this user should be given a second chance. I would have opposed the withdrawal on nomination, but seems like she has withdrew on her own. I think this kind of experience is enough punishment knowing that she is known now, but with a bad reputation. Santa hat.png Powers38 おはようヾ(´・ω・`) 05:59, February 15, 2018 (UTC)

Allow renomination - I tend to agree with Liquid, guilt by association isn't good. If she continues editing and re-requests in a few months then it can be reconsidered. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 20:23, February 15, 2018 (UTC)

Allow renomination - svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 03:33, February 16, 2018 (UTC)

Revoke nom, allow renom - Per dro, et al. Superiosity the WikianQuick chat button.png : Sup 11:04, February 19, 2018 (UTC)

Change rules around the title

Our current guidelines state that there is no restriction on the number of in-game accounts that the title can be requested for is unlimited (within reason). I propose that we limit future nominations to having the title applied to one account. We can't apply this restriction retroactively to past nominations, nor can we easily remove titles from existing users who we suspect of abuse, however by having this restriction in place in the future it prevents someone from giving the title to accounts not owned by them - including those people who have been trying to "sell" the title, which being real-world trading, is against Jagex's rules and also against ours.

The Wikian title is one of the few incentives we have to get people to edit. Since nominations for it first started, we have always been super lenient on the guidelines behind nominations and getting the title isn't too much of a difficult task and we want to encourage new editors as much as possible. It’s sad to have to introduce restrictions like this but we can't let the only thing that provides an in-game incentive for editing, which has been provided in trust and good faith to us by Jagex, be ruined by abuse.


Support – as proposer. Magic logs detail.pngIsobelTalk page 13:26, February 14, 2018 (UTC)

Support - This restriction should have been imposed from day one. There’s little reason for legit editors to have the title on multiple accounts imo, and the ambiguous guideline where you can have as many accounts as you want on your nomination is not okay, and opens up a world of abuse. jayden 13:40, February 14, 2018 (UTC)

Support - 67 kc vitalismanhattan'Ironman btw 13:47, February 14, 2018 (UTC)

Support - Pernix cowl detail.png MAGE-KIL-R (Talk)Zaros symbol.png 13:53, February 14, 2018 (UTC)

Oppose - Lots of people (such as myself and Gareth) play multiple accounts. At least limit it to two, perhaps three. And allow Gareth to UCS when he considers it obvious or well-known that a person has more alts (I don't expect this to come up often, if at all). --LiquidTalk 14:30, February 14, 2018 (UTC)

I think it could go by a case-by-case basis on stuff as obvious as a wiki admin having an ironman account. Achievements Coelacanth0794 Talk Contribs 14:34, February 14, 2018 (UTC)
The title is for vanity, and I don't think it's neccessary to be granted to every account a person owns, rather than just their main. Bad people ruin good things for others, and I think this is a prime case of that and one where taking action to stop abuse of the system is more beneficial than leaving it as it is jayden 14:38, February 14, 2018 (UTC)

Support/Comment - Just wondering what would happen in the case where the person's main account has been hijacked/banned/lost (i.e. not rwt). How would we confirm/go about restoring the person's title? BGUyLfN.png CJaW7Er.png 14:33, February 14, 2018 (UTC)

Support - I personally think we're a little too loose on the title. Restricting it to just one account doesn't deter editors, nor does it makes it harder to obtain the title. I'm aware I'm speaking hypocritically here considering two of my accounts have the title, but if I had the choice of removing one of them in exchange for this rule, I would. --Talk to Kelsey 14:49, February 14, 2018 (UTC)

Support - I would have to agree with Kelsey when it comes to being too loose. I think that we could definitely limit it to one main and one ironman. That way people with multiple accounts can get it on their ironman but most people don't alt anything other than an ironman at least from what I have seen. I also agree with Liquid that Gaz could use common sense. pWkk5s5.pngConstitution.png 15:17, February 14, 2018 (UTC)

Due to further reflection. I believe the process we have now is enough to veto. If we require players to declare their accounts in the beginning of the nominaton process and we handle additional case by case we should be in good territory. I think if someone has an obscene amount of accounts we can call it into question but we should assume the best. pWkk5s5.pngConstitution.png 02:36, February 15, 2018 (UTC)

Support-ish - I believe this should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. I believe that editors, especially newer ones, should only be allowed one account upon requesting the title, but with the possibility of adding the title to more accounts if they so wish, under the condition(s) that they have kept on editing after the initial nomination and that these edits are constructive and of at least halfway decent quality. A downright 1 user:1 title conversion is not the way to go in my opinion, but there should be flexibility allowed for those who put in the effort to stay active. User talk:InvalidCards.png: RS3 Inventory image of User talk:InvalidCards InvalidCards Special:Contributions/InvalidCards.png: RS3 Inventory image of Special:Contributions/InvalidCards 15:52, February 14, 2018 (UTC)

Oppose - I play on two accounts, as do many of the players I know. I've also considered making an ironman and probably will eventually. While I already wear the title on both my accounts, I don't think it's fair to deny that privilege to future titleholders. More importantly, I don't think a 1:1 rule will prevent abuse because people will simply sell edits instead of selling RS accounts. I agree there should be some limit on the number of accounts (3-5), but we will need a better plan to combat abuse. Slayer-icon.png Gangsterls Divination-icon.png talk 16:50, February 14, 2018 (UTC)

Those that sell edits would be quickly discovered because we have started checking for abuse. The 1:1 is just a compliment to this, ensuring that we cover all of the bases, from those who sell edits to those who simply sell a spot on their 'in-game name' part of the nomination. jayden 18:17, February 14, 2018 (UTC)
Unless you can automate checking the IPs each nominee has used for matches against the IPs of all other wiki editors then selling edits will be difficult to catch. There are 100+ users with the title already, not to mention users without the title could still sell edits, so it's not feasible to check manually. Not to mention someone can simply walk down the street to a coffee shop and make the sold edits from another IP. A one account limit misses the forest for the trees and does more to prevent good faith editors from using the title than it does to prevent abuse. Slayer-icon.png Gangsterls Divination-icon.png talk 18:26, February 14, 2018 (UTC)

Support - I support Psi's suggestion, that's reasonable and seems fair to everyone, especially those who do actively play multiple accounts and want them, like gangster said above. Annikaa2 (talk) 17:45, February 14, 2018 (UTC)

Support - It's being abused more than it's being utilised. I don't necessarily agree with the 'case-by-case' basis however. We need to be consistent and not look like we're favouring one editor over another. HaidroH rune.pngEagle feather 3.pngCandle (blood red).png 1XqyDNM.png Crystal triskelion fragment 3.pngHazelmere's signet ring.png 20:13, February 14, 2018 (UTC)

Is it being abused? How many account sales or sales of another person's RSN being listed on someone's nomination have been verified? Slayer-icon.png Gangsterls Divination-icon.png talk 20:43, February 14, 2018 (UTC)
There was that incident where a guy was scamming people for money, claiming to use it for “wikia business”. If I recall correctly that person asked for the title on two accounts. (Haidro on phone) 21:06, February 14, 2018 (UTC) HaidroH rune.pngEagle feather 3.pngCandle (blood red).png 1XqyDNM.png Crystal triskelion fragment 3.pngHazelmere's signet ring.png 21:06, February 14, 2018 (UTC)
Not familiar with the case but many people ask for the titles on 2 accounts and it sounds more like he scammed someone out of their money than that he actually sold an account with the title. There's actual confirmed evidence above of someone editing on behalf of another user. I just did a rough count and came up with 34 current titleholders who have more than one account listed under RuneScape:The Wikian/Users, including a couple who have 3 accounts listed. That's over 30 valid, non-harmful use cases versus one suspicious case. We shouldn't let a tiny number of abusers ruin it for the vast majority. Slayer-icon.png Gangsterls Divination-icon.png talk 21:23, February 14, 2018 (UTC)

Oppose-ish but support psi's amendments and gangsterls's argument Pikachu lv95 (talk) 21:50, February 14, 2018 (UTC)

Neutral - I can understand both sides. From one side I understand that limiting it to just one account shouldn't necessarily be a big deal as it doesn't hinder legitimate editors from obtaining the title on one of their RS accounts. From the other side I can understand that there are players who play on multiple accounts, and thus would like to show it off on those accounts. Personally I do have a few alts, but I don't really use those which is why only my main account has the title, because tbh it's the only account I really use which doesn't mean that there aren't players who actually use two or more accounts on a regular basis. Farming-icon.png Salix (Talk) Prifddinas lodestone icon.png 22:35, February 14, 2018 (UTC)

Oppose - Massive overreaction to an isolated incident. You're too quick to dismiss the merits of having multiple accounts with the title. I feel like we're already free to oppose title noms based on the suspicion of title misuse, so what does this actually accomplish? Totally silly restriction.ʞooɔ 01:52, February 15, 2018 (UTC)

Support --dDbvitC.pngScuzzy Betahib8CAd.png 02:24, February 15, 2018 (UTC)

Neutral - The problem lies on how to root out fake users who buy edits or reputation in the wiki in order to buy a wikian title, not to mess with the value of wikian title per account. In addition to it, the wiki does not seem to have enough manpower to distinguish whether multiple runescape accounts are associated with single wiki account or not. Also typically multiple rs accounts share the on-time with a single person (unless the accounts are shared, but that's against TOS, playing multi accounts to get duplicate daily advantages like managing Micsellina is also against TOS) so I abstain my vote, but make my stance that if several wiki users are associated, this proposition will be a liability on accusing them sharing very similar bahavior based on very few edits, but in the other hand limiting to 1 account per person will suppose a better control by organizing the edits of users more easily. Rewlf2 02:43, February 15, 2018 (UTC)

Conditional support - Add restrictions on how many accounts they can have it on based on their contributions. Helpful people, like Gaz, Gangsterls, and Shockstorm, all of whom have years of editing experience and have continued to be a great asset, deserve it on multiple accounts, but those with fewer edits or who did a "Wikian drive-by", like Zants or Avoriso, get it on a single account. This adds a further incentive to continue contributing while also acknowledging the contributions of great editors What I've done Ciphrius Kane Talk 02:46, February 15, 2018 (UTC)

How do you differentiate in a meaningful or quantifiable way? Something like "sysops can have up to 3 accounts, otherwise 1"? I agree in principle but does it violate RS:AEAE? Slayer-icon.png Gangsterls Divination-icon.png talk 03:57, February 15, 2018 (UTC)
Per my own comment below, requiring a second nomination process for additional accounts to be awarded the title is probably as close to a "quantifiable" way of doing this as we would get, at least that I can think of. While in may not be exactly quantifiable, it is more like "quantifiable", in basically the same way as earning the original title.  RS AdvLogMyles Prower  Talk 04:22, February 15, 2018 (UTC)
Those 3 editors I mentioned have thousands of edits over years of experience (Gaz - just under 10 years; Gangsterls - 11 years experience, 6,625 edits; 28,387 edits; Shockstorm - 5 1/2 years experience, 6,000 edits) - their admin status has naething to do with it (actually forgot Shockstorm is an OS admin when I wrote that). Furthermore, I feel that AEAE/SAOW disnae come into this - AEAE/SAOW are about opinion weighing and how it's handled, nae about preserving equality in other areas What I've done Ciphrius Kane Talk 04:27, February 15, 2018 (UTC)

Support/Comments - I think that initially the title should be awarded to only ONE account. If the player continues to be a part of the community, active editor, etc, we should allow up to an additional 2 accounts, but no more than that. I really cant see any reason someone would have more than 3 accounts played regularly enough to warrant the title, anyway. In addition, I would like to propose that awarding the title to additional accounts (after the first approved nomination) should require an additional nomination process. This allows the community to sort of "verify" that the user legitimately has additional accounts of their own and is not attempting to get the title for another (for example, if a new-ish Wikian wants the title on another account, but nobody seems to have ever heard of this other account, it would be possible reason to oppose nomination for additional titles). I also think hard-cap at 3 titles because honestly, if you really really want the title on more than that, you're probably just being vain. Also, a hard-cap is just that extra safety measure to help ensure that all titles are as legitimately earned as possible.  RS AdvLogMyles Prower  Talk 04:22, February 15, 2018 (UTC)

I like this because it seems the most backwards compatible with the existing users who already have the title on 2-3 accounts, without being unfair to newer editors. Nominations for additional accounts give the wiki and Gaz an opportunity to use common sense to determine whether the account is actually owned by the right person. And "wikian drive-bys" as Ciphrius described, would fail their 2nd nomination. Slayer-icon.png Gangsterls Divination-icon.png talk 05:07, February 15, 2018 (UTC)

Conditional support per Myles - I think it may be a nice incentive for people who possibly might want to have the title on their secondary account/ironman. What would we do with the users who are already granted the title though? Do they automatically get a max of 2 account with the title or will it stay the way it is per user basis (Some users have 2 and will need to do nothing. Some have only 1, but will they need to do a nomination or automatically given a second one?). Santa hat.png Powers38 おはようヾ(´・ω・`) 06:05, February 15, 2018 (UTC)

My opinion here would be that users who currently posses the title on multiple accounts would be "grandfathered" in - no action necessary (including if they have more titles than any hard-cap if that were to become a thing, they would still keep their titles). Any future grants of the title from this point forward (primary title OR secondary/tertiary accounts) would need to go through the nomination process. I would also propose that if no hard-cap is set, that users should only be able to request additional title grants once per period of time in order to help prevent possibility for abuse. For example, a request for additional titles may only be made once every 6 months and for not more than 1 additional account at a time. However, personally, I would prefer a hard cap at 3 accounts, then we wouldn't need to worry about waiting periods, etc.  RS AdvLogMyles Prower  Talk 17:03, February 15, 2018 (UTC)

Oppose proposal - It feels like we're jumping the gun. Neutral to Myles' addendum - Slightly less onerous but I'm still not agreed that we need change at all. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 20:23, February 15, 2018 (UTC)

Oppose - The most viable way is to make users "prove" they are themselves in another account, and the account is theirs. And limit to one account isn't a good solution for people that play on a Main + an alt. So two or three is the best thing to do. Maximus Gugu of ArmadylQuick chat button.png: Your Friendly Neighborhood Artist. 22:22, February 17, 2018 (UTC)

Soft Support - I would do it on the logistical grounds of whomever has the in-game thingy for giving out the title, they'd have to meet up with each and every account. There was always the possibility of abuse for the title. Seems this is the first documented evidence of it. While I'm not fond of penalizing the community over something like this, we do need to show that we don't condone this sort of behavior. --Deltaslug (talk) 02:45, February 18, 2018 (UTC)

Closed -

  • User:Manhattan2 will be indefinitely blocked.
  • User:Annikaa2 may request the Wikian title via the usual process at any time.
  • There is no consensus to change the rules regarding the title. --LiquidTalk 03:57, February 21, 2018 (UTC)