Inkipedia talk:Policy/Multiple accounts

Suggested clarification - IP alone is not enough
I used to think that multiple accounts from the same IP address was multiple account abuse. However, experience has shown me that alone is not enough to be considered abuse. Because it could simply be a family member or friend who also uses Inkipedia and is using a household's WiFi.

IP checks should only be used to corroborate actual suspicion of abusive behavior, like vote manipulation or block evasion. Heddy (talk) 07:11, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I think perhaps the burden of clarifying why multiple accounts are made under one IP should be up to the people making the accounts. The policy states that creating multiple accounts that serve no purpose is abuse. While having fun in the user space is allowed, if multiple accounts under the same IP are made and are only doing that then these two accounts under the same IP serve no purpose, and should, unless confirmed to be different people, be blocked. Luke26 (talk) 15:27, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * @Luke26 After some thought, I agree about the burden. When multiple accounts are made under one IP, those accounts should be warned about this policy, and the suspected duplicate could be immediately blocked without waiting for an explanation because the burden is on them and they can still edit their talk page to explain. However, I think the original account should generally just be warned, as people might not even know about this policy. Heddy (talk) 18:46, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I got a permanent IP ban because my brother was abusing his account. I ended up crying half the night. So it can sometimes just be family members-- 12:24, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Multiple accounts policy proposal
[ [User:Trig Jegman/MAP|Trig Jegman's proposal is here.]] The proposed multiple accounts policy takes a firm stance against multiple accounts, whereas the current policy in some ways implies that multiple accounts are allowed. There are other minor changes.

Please vote by signing your name below. If there are no oppose votes two weeks from now, the vote will be closed at that point on 2023-06-22. Otherwise, the vote will end 4 weeks from now, on 2023-07-06. Heddy (talk) 22:50, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Heddy (talk) 22:50, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * 2)  Magewalrus  S2 Icon Sanitized Octoling.png (talk) S2 Icon C.Q. Cumber.png 22:55, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * 3)   22:58, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * 4) I mean, I made the thing. Trig Jegman - 23:01, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * 5) Xevsplatoon (talk) 01:35, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * 6) GloverMist (talk) 19:10, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * 7)  01:21, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * 8) Six-claws (talk) 12:55, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * 9) Arceusgjengen (talk) 13:29, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * 10)  22:01, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * 11)  16:47, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * 12) S3 Tableturf Card Toni Kensa.png ℂ𝕝𝕒𝕣𝕚𝕟𝕖𝕥.𝕠𝕔𝕥𝕠 S3 Tableturf Card Annaki.png ( ℙ𝕣𝕒𝕥𝕥𝕝𝕖 ) 20:08, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * 13)   14:56, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * 14)  16:25, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * 15) — Exaskliri (they/them) (talk | contribs) 10:50, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * 16) this is Sideorderfan my sig doesn't work yay(chit-chat)

Comments
Sorry if I'm missing something, but abusing multiple accounts is not the same thing as having multiple accounts, so perhaps the policy could be edited to reflect that. It should mention something about why having multiple accounts, but not abusing them, is still problematic, because right now the policy only discusses abuse of multiple accounts while trying to ban ALL multiple accounts. Eminence   Talk  01:45, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I support it generally, but I have a concern about one sentence in it, which is "Users found to be using multiple accounts may face an IP block". I think that should be changed to be users abusing multiple accounts instead of using multiple accounts, since it might scare users who create new accounts because they cannot access their old account. 03:05, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Exactly what I said, punishments for using multiple accounts should only be a block on the second account, which is the current policy. IP bans should only be used for people abusing multiple accounts.  Eminence    Talk  11:08, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Have made a few small tweaks to the language to be clearer, let me know what you think. Trig - 17:20, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Does this new rule affect users who create secondary accounts for reasons like being locked out of their original account, or they cannot use their original account on the device they signed in on because it is simply not convenient? 12:51, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I have left that policy pretty much the same—if you're locked out of an account because you've forgotten a password and no form of retrieval will work, create a new account and inform an administrator. The old account will be locked. I am a bit confused as to what  is supposed to mean. Users should not have different accounts for different devices, per se. Only one account a person. Trig - 13:17, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I saw a user had created a new account because they could not use their account on their phone, and so they created an account on a new device. 13:22, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, that's something to bring up to an administrator (hello) on a talk page with links to the two accounts. Users are not permitted to do this both under this updated policy and the existing policy prior. Trig - 13:28, 13 June 2023 (UTC)


 * weather update: the policy proposal has passed and therefore has been integrated into the formal policy page. thanks all for voting. Trig - 19:14, 24 June 2023 (UTC)