Wikisource talk:Alternate accounts
"Do not use undisclosed alternative accounts without good reason. If you must, do so only with care. "
- None from me. billinghurst sDrewth 05:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- Same here. —unsigned comment by Andrewshousha (talk) 2010-05-05T00:06:16.
See Wikisource:Scriptorium#Wikisource:Alternate_accounts, JeepdaySock (talk) 12:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC), archive Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2011-02#Wikisource:Alternate_accounts. JeepdaySock (talk) 11:42, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
WMF staff alternate accounts under inappropriate? really?
- I would have thought that we would have had WMF staff using alternate accounts as an appropriate behaviour, such it belongs in the top section, not the bottom.
- For a clean start, while it is implicit, should we be explicit that a clean start means that the old account is not used again? Preferably marked as inactive. Use of old account, and new account would obviate 'a clean start' and hence be an inappropriate use. It may be useful to be explicit on that point.
- Moved ’Wikimedia Foundation staff’. Are there any suggested text changes for "clean start", we might as well do the word smithing here. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:56, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- Probably something in the 'bad' section that says (copy edit as you please) ... Where a clean start was undertaken (as above), the reactivation (by editing or by use of email) of the former account, explicitly requires a declaration of reactivation, and linking to their other accounts on this wiki.
- So a new bullet (as below) at Wikisource:Alternate_accounts#Inappropriate uses of alternate accounts. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:06, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- Where a clean start was undertaken (as above), the reactivation (by editing or by use of email) of the former account, without a declaration of reactivation, and linking to their other accounts on this wiki; is considered inappropriate uses of alternate accounts.