Wikidata talk:Alternate accounts

Userbox

Hi, the Template User alternative account has been created. Maybe a native speaker of English can change the current text, and write about the userbox. I think it is important for legal alternative accounts to show this userbox or another mark to indicate that it is an alternative account. Ashaverus, alternative account of Jmvkrecords - (talk) 17:17, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Illegitimate uses of alternate accounts — "Circumventing sanctions or blocks"

Sorry for bringing this up so late, but apparently I wasn't reading the "Circumventing sanctions or blocks" part of the guideline carefully enough before commenting on the RFC which caused the addition of this section. I strongly disagree with it the way it is, especially with its title implying blocks are sanctions. Furthermore, I don't see any point in blocking users doing good and constructive edits merely because they are suspected to be alternate accounts of a blocked user. As long as no disruption happens and no discussions are manipulated I don't see any reason for blocking such accounts. The way the guideline is written even implies that blocked bot owners have to stop their bots if they got blocked for a reason which is possibly not even slightly related to their legitimated usage of alternate accounts. Blocks are there to protect a project from disruption, not to conquer "person[s] behind the account". This is why I hereby request to remove this section either completely or to replace it with something similar to [1]("Alternate accounts that obviously and unambiguously appear to be the same but not declared, and which are being used for disruptive purposes, may be blocked indefinitely from editing Wikidata once discovered"). Regards, Vogone (talk) 20:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

• I agree. If an account is not being disruptive, then there is no need to block it to prevent the good edits that it is making. Ajraddatz (talk) 20:40, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
• No, the explicit inclusion of "blocks" would imply, if anything, that blocks and sanctions are different. If they are being constructive with a new account, then it might be more logical to remove the block on the master account. The thing is that evading the block usually means getting around it to do what the editor was blocked for, hence why it is disruptive. In short, I would oppose the proposed revisions as too ambiguous. Defying the community in any way, shape, or form is by definition disruptive and I would not condone any implication otherwise.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:47, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

  So you support e. g. blocking bot accounts of blocked bot owners merely because they continue their (not disruptive) task? And what you said ("The thing is that evading the block usually means getting around it to do what the editor was blocked for"), why isn't that explicitly mentioned in the guideline then? Why do you think it would harm to add that such "evasions" are only bad if they cause disruption (i. e. "getting around it to do what the editor was blocked for")? I am open to hear any alternative to the proposed revision, but the current one has serious problems, in my eyes. Vogone (talk) 16:34, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

  Yes, if an admin wants to allow the bot to continue editing (s)he can explicitly specify that in the block rationale. But a blocked user cannot effectively answer queries about the bot's problems nor will the blocked user likely remain attentive to any discussion regarding the bot, so the bot account should not edit unless the blocking admin is OK with that. And, (I don't like the use of the word "harm" by the way, it's not the standard by which we assess policies) I'm not going to endorse a revision of the policy to the point that someone could wikilawyer over their socking being non-disruptive. Finally, this revision will not happen unless you hold an RfC on it.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:19, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

  I still don't get why you think we should block alternate accounts doing non-disruptive edits completely unrelated to the block reason. And if you say "unless the blocking admin is OK with that", isn't that already such an exception for "non-disruptive" edits? If yes, why shouldn't this be mentioned in the guideline? And regarding the bots, talk page/Special:EmailUser access usually isn't even revoked so that bot owners could still be contacted comfortably. You already mentioned the in your opinion "likely" case that bot owners suddenly stop caring about their bots in case their accounts get blocked, but I think such "discussions" concerning the bot do not happen that often and if there is a need to fix an issue but the bot operator seems unavailable the bot account can still be emergency blocked, like it was done in several cases before. And no, not every trivial change requires an RfC. If we find a solution we all agree on here I'd prefer that over an RfC in order not to overload the process with trivial discussions completely irrelevant to the largest part of the community, especially since this here is not even a policy. Vogone (talk) 12:41, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

  The thing is, a change to a policy is not a trivial change. The current wording has the force of the community's consensus. You haven't proved that your proposed wording does so as well - the only way to do that is an RfC. Blocked users cannot do tasks such as reverting a bot's edits or replying to administrators' noticeboard discussions. Even if an administrator explicitly says yes (this is allowed by the policy already - "unless otherwise stated by the blocking administrator"), I don't condone it. I stand by the principle that blocks are per-person. If you really think this is a big issue you should open an RfC on it. I'm not budging from my position though.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:10, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

  What makes you think it is a policy? It is not even, and also never was, marked as such. Vogone (talk) 14:33, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

  This page was ratified by RfC...--Jasper Deng (talk) 16:20, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Why do we need public disclosure of secondary accounts?

It seems to me that there is information, where the person who enters that information into Wikidata needs privacy because of the political sensitivy of the information. If a an investigative journalist adds information into Wikidata during one research project, it's useful for the person to be able to stay private, even when they do have a main account on Wikidata that can be linked to their public persona. Having clear rules that secondary accounts are not supposed to edit the same item or discussion as a main account seems to be enough. A tool like CheckUser is good enough to protect ourselves against sockpuppets that we don't need a privacy reducing rule for those people who want to add politically sensitive information to Wikidata. ChristianKl (✉) 18:12, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

@ChristianKl: I agree. There is already the section Wikidata:Alternate accounts#Illegitimate uses of alternate accounts that seems to cover this just fine. If a user is not "manipulating discussions" or "circumventing sanctions or blocks", then why would we care how many accounts one has? There is also a third requirement "Accounts that do not serve a productive purpose" which is actually a bit half-baked, we shouldn't care about unused or seemingly unused accounts. Some people create an account just to be able to configure their preferences without ever editing anything. There is a photographer on Commons from a country that's not known for respecting human rights or freedom of speech who creates a new account for every single photo they upload. They're good photos, so why care? If someone makes good contributions to Wikidata, why should we care how many accounts they use to do it? — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 01:55, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

We've had this discussion numerous times...--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:18, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely pointless comment if you can't be bothered to dig up the links. With the links it would be informative, but now it isn't because absolutely anything that has been in place for a long time has been "discussed numerous times" before being abandoned because we realized it was stupid and/or petty. Men-only voting, racial segregation, usage of CFCs. And if those discussions resulted in a policy that causes you to block constructive users on grounds that are nothing but malum prohibitum, those discussions were obviously not constructive. Interestingly, despite not pinging or contacting you, it is you who responds here. Because it was a block placed by you for this exact reason that brought me here.

@Yair rand: courtesy ping. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 04:17, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Nobody ever bothered to actually link the responsible RfC. It's Wikidata:Requests for comment/Sockpuppetry guidelines from 2013 and here is the offending edit that changed the policy, made by a former admin who has been banned by the WMF in 2015. (no idea why) On 22 September 2018‎, Rschen7754 upgraded the page to policy status "per the RFC". Link people! Link! I can't find any relevant RFC. The original RFC mixed up "guidelines" and "policy" and Izno (admin at the time) noted that My personal feeling is that most such items should be guidelines, but that's just me. as they closed the RfC. If Rschen7754 can't link another RfC, this page is still a guideline. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 05:07, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

The RfC you linked is the one that ratified this as policy (the proposer clearly stated he was proposing a policy), and the one John was referring to was Wikidata:Requests for comment/Sock puppetry, an older RfC started by yours truly which didn't get consensus, leading to John's rewrite. The fact that Rschen updated it to a policy in 2018 is orthogonal to the fact that the duly-closed RfC ratified it as policy in 2013. If you really have a beef about this, how about you yourself create another project chat discussion and model an RfC off that, instead of trying to wikilawyer.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:08, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Ambiguity re: shared-use accounts

Wikidata:Alternate accounts says, Editors are expected to edit primarily from a single account, used by a single person.

That sentence is ambiguous. Which of the following meanings was intended?

1. Editors are expected to edit from an account used by a single person, and primarily from a single account.
2. Editors are expected to edit primarily from an account used by a single person, and primarily from a single account.

I.e. the expectation that editors edit from an account used by a single person: does this apply always or only "primarily"? Zazpot (talk) 22:27, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Accounts declared on another wiki

Is this acceptable, or do they also have to be declared here? Peter James (talk) 17:16, 14 April 2021 (UTC)