User talk:Sharoetry
Wikipedia does not allow the creation of alternative accounts for the discussion of different topics, its a form of WP:Sock Puppetry see Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Legitimate_uses for discussion of appropriate uses of alternative accounts. This account will be blocked, Sadads (talk) 13:40, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
- Dear Sadads, i'm not entirely sure which policy is in violation as the accounts are clearly marked linked. The link you have directed me to states: "Contributions to the same page with clearly linked legitimate alternative accounts is not forbidden" from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Inappropriate_uses_of_alternative_accounts no where does it say that using an alternate account or pseudonym is not permitted "for the discussion of different topics." perhaps I have missed this can you please direct me to where it states this is not allowed. Thanks. Sharoetry (talk) 20:43, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
- As you have read, secondary accounts should not be use for a) "Contributing to the same page or discussion with multiple accounts" or b)"Avoiding scrutiny". Both of these appear to be what you were doing: your first account had barely any edits before you created the second one, and the second one was used as an arm for reverting the moves of users you disagreed with even before your declaration of the linked nature of the accounts. If you would like a clean start with this account, and don't plan on using the other, then we should close down the first account (through blocking it). Split accounts, simply for topical focus, does not meet the communities policy for Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Legitimate_uses. As the nutshell at the top of the policy page says, quite simply: "one editor, one account." Without proving your good intention within the community by building quality content and working towards WP:Consensus and without demonstrating a real need per the legitimate uses list for an additional account, duplicate accounts is simply not an option. I look forward to helping you become better integrated into the community, Sadads (talk) 00:45, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- it is rather vague though as the guidelines read "Valid reasons include:" and so would not be limited to just those things, and no where does it seem to exclude: "Wikipedia does not allow the creation of alternative accounts for the discussion of different topics," this is what I would like to be guided to, as I can not find this in any policy, and would like to use alternate accounts for different topics to keep matters more organised for me. b.) Once gain I was not attempting to "avoid scrutiny" as I was consistent in my thread of discussions. It was my intention to have separate accounts for editing, and commenting on different topics from the beginning, I was not planning to comment with what was intended to be the main account, however the reverts of my edits came so fast, that I got involved in discussion prematurely before completing setting up, and linked my accounts as soon as there was confusion or any doubt about identity, and further I did not get involved again with the main account once the sub account started commenting, indeed if I was seeking to avoid scrutiny and use alternate accounts in any specific way against policy then I would have proceeded with very different behaviour, especially when doubt arose. b.) and what you have quoted above is only half the sentence it reads in full context as: "Editors may not use more than one account to contribute to the same page or discussion in a way to suggest that they are multiple people." So it was not to suggest that I am multiple people, my comments and then this subsequent discussion stands proof to that, if there ever was any doubt then that is now clear for certain, and on the appearance of any doubt I clearly demonstrated that it was not the case of multiple people. the same paragraph further reads "Contributions to the same page with clearly linked legitimate alternative accounts is not forbidden (e.g. editing the same page with your main and public computer account or editing a page using your main account that your bot account edited)." it does not appear to limit legitimate reasons of alternate accounts, and allows for legitimate reasons. Further in the overall picture it would appear to me that "alternative accounts for the discussion of different topics," could be a legitimate reason as it seems it's not specifically considered illegitimate in as so far as I can find in the policy. Unless there is something I am missing in the policy that you can direct me to specifically in full context not permitting alternate accounts that are clearly linked (which they were at the time of this ban). I would like to know so that I can stay within wiki policy but this does appear to be ambiguous, and if I am with in wiki policy I would also then request to be treated fairly please. Sharoetry (talk) 09:45, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- Again, I am going to point to the nutshell at the top of the page: "one editor, one account." Without a clear justification, other than "I want to split my editing focus", you have yet to demonstrate a need for an additional account. Most user accounts edit in multiple different topic areas under multiple different roles in the community. I consulted other administrators, and the justification you provide simply doesn't fall within best community practice. Multiple accounts generally are only used when: a) demonstrating account creation to new users, b) security or privacy reasons, or c) a clean restart. The other reasons are very rarely used, and until you demonstrate good faith within the community by contributing with cooperation and learning the communities best practices, the standard is not to tolerate unnecessary use of sockpuppets. Please choose one of the two accounts as your only account representing your Wikipedia contribution efforts, and I will keep the other indefinitely blocked. Best of luck, Sadads (talk) 15:21, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- it is rather vague though as the guidelines read "Valid reasons include:" and so would not be limited to just those things, and no where does it seem to exclude: "Wikipedia does not allow the creation of alternative accounts for the discussion of different topics," this is what I would like to be guided to, as I can not find this in any policy, and would like to use alternate accounts for different topics to keep matters more organised for me. b.) Once gain I was not attempting to "avoid scrutiny" as I was consistent in my thread of discussions. It was my intention to have separate accounts for editing, and commenting on different topics from the beginning, I was not planning to comment with what was intended to be the main account, however the reverts of my edits came so fast, that I got involved in discussion prematurely before completing setting up, and linked my accounts as soon as there was confusion or any doubt about identity, and further I did not get involved again with the main account once the sub account started commenting, indeed if I was seeking to avoid scrutiny and use alternate accounts in any specific way against policy then I would have proceeded with very different behaviour, especially when doubt arose. b.) and what you have quoted above is only half the sentence it reads in full context as: "Editors may not use more than one account to contribute to the same page or discussion in a way to suggest that they are multiple people." So it was not to suggest that I am multiple people, my comments and then this subsequent discussion stands proof to that, if there ever was any doubt then that is now clear for certain, and on the appearance of any doubt I clearly demonstrated that it was not the case of multiple people. the same paragraph further reads "Contributions to the same page with clearly linked legitimate alternative accounts is not forbidden (e.g. editing the same page with your main and public computer account or editing a page using your main account that your bot account edited)." it does not appear to limit legitimate reasons of alternate accounts, and allows for legitimate reasons. Further in the overall picture it would appear to me that "alternative accounts for the discussion of different topics," could be a legitimate reason as it seems it's not specifically considered illegitimate in as so far as I can find in the policy. Unless there is something I am missing in the policy that you can direct me to specifically in full context not permitting alternate accounts that are clearly linked (which they were at the time of this ban). I would like to know so that I can stay within wiki policy but this does appear to be ambiguous, and if I am with in wiki policy I would also then request to be treated fairly please. Sharoetry (talk) 09:45, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- As you have read, secondary accounts should not be use for a) "Contributing to the same page or discussion with multiple accounts" or b)"Avoiding scrutiny". Both of these appear to be what you were doing: your first account had barely any edits before you created the second one, and the second one was used as an arm for reverting the moves of users you disagreed with even before your declaration of the linked nature of the accounts. If you would like a clean start with this account, and don't plan on using the other, then we should close down the first account (through blocking it). Split accounts, simply for topical focus, does not meet the communities policy for Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Legitimate_uses. As the nutshell at the top of the policy page says, quite simply: "one editor, one account." Without proving your good intention within the community by building quality content and working towards WP:Consensus and without demonstrating a real need per the legitimate uses list for an additional account, duplicate accounts is simply not an option. I look forward to helping you become better integrated into the community, Sadads (talk) 00:45, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
April 2014
[edit] | This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Sadads (talk) 13:41, 24 April 2014 (UTC) |