Wikipedia talk:Temporary accounts: Difference between revisions

Line 92: Line 92:

::::Agreed. I didn’t see anything about this. I really would like to see the discussion on how this affects vandalism if users can create multiple temporary accounts within a single day. –[[User:PerpetuityGrat|PerpetuityGrat]] ([[User talk:PerpetuityGrat|talk]]) 16:27, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

This is a policy that’s going to prove to be a disaster. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 17:03, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

:Agreed, I totally missed the village discussion. This hurts WP’s anti vandalism efforts greatly and confuses ipusers. Does it even matter if we leave talk page notices for the temp accounts then? –[[User:PerpetuityGrat|PerpetuityGrat]] ([[User talk:PerpetuityGrat|talk]]) 18:47, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

== IP talk pages in my watchlist ==

While a copy of Mz7’s mass message is a start, I’m comparing it to fr.wiki’s equivalent page, and in the long run we should probably move most of the detailed information on using TAIV, including the instructional video links on using it, to WP:TAIV. Even on Wikipedia:IP users we barely mentioned CheckUser and how that worked. Zzyzx11 (talk) 17:55, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think it would be possible to place a notice regarding this new feature so that it will pop up on watchlists? I see it at the top of the Recent Changes page, but I was at first confused by what I was seeing when I first saw an edit made by a temporary account on my watchlist. TornadoLGS (talk) 19:32, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is one already: [1]. Mz7 (talk) 20:09, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I somehow missed that. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:58, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone! I wanted to give you a table that will help explain the effects of blocks that are made, and their effects on temporary accounts and IP addresses. Here it is:

Overview of block systems
Block applied	Affects TAs?	Affects PAs?
Soft IP block	All TAs	No
Hard IP block	All TAs	All PAs
Soft TA block	Only the blocked TA	No
Hard TA block	All TAs^[1]	All PAs
Soft PA block	No	Only the blocked PA
Hard PA block	All TAs	All PAs

If there are issues, questions, comments, or concerns, please let me know (ping me in your response so that I’m notified). 😉 Best – ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:55, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Including other temporary accounts on the same IP.

Doesn’t this new feature mean thst registered editors now can engage in sock puppetry? Make an edit as a registered editor, log out, edit a bit later by the temporary edit number, then log back in later and respond to their anonymous post as a registered editor?

Maybe I just don’t understand? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 01:57, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Same, I don’t understand this new feature. I am noticed this when I watching on my watchlist. ROY is WAR Talk! 02:33, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to give a registered editor all the advantages of bring registered, but to hide behind an anonymous number like an IP editor. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 03:30, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is it bad? ROY is WAR Talk! 03:48, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Very concerned about the potential negative impacts of this. Catgirlsreal (talk) 03:31, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t really see this as much different from before, where a registered editor could log out, edit using their IP address (rather than a temporary account), and then log back in with their account. The relevant policy here is WP:EWLO: it would be a violation of the sockpuppetry policy to log out and pretend to be a separate person than your logged-in identity, or do any of the other prohibited activities mentioned in WP:ILLEGIT. Mz7 (talk) 06:04, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From my understanding, it’s not really that different than how it currently works, only with the temp account displaying instead of the editor’s IP. In your example, if you suspected sock puppetry and reported it, they would be able to quickly ID both accounts as having the same IP address and it would be treated as it would have previously. DragonBrickLayer (talk) 10:22, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Protection to Wikipedia is the same as always. But what has happened is what should have happened when Wikipedia was set up – people’s IP addresses are no longer revealed to all and sundry. Wikipedia has been operating illegally in the EU for some years by publicly revealing users IP addresses. We are now more legal and moral. Users’ privacy and safety shouldn’t have been compromised by revealing their IP addresses. It was an error that has taken a long time to fix. SilkTork (talk) 19:11, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Will notifications work the same for temporary accounts as for regular accounts? I pinged a temporary account as a test and it appeared to go through, but I just want to make sure that the notification will appear as expected for the temp user. Thanks. Zeibgeist (talk) 03:21, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

After skimming Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF)#Temporary accounts rollout, I see that notifications should work as normal for temporary accounts. The documentation at this page will need to be updated to better describe this and other features of the temp account rollout; a lot of nuances discussed at the Village pump thread are not described here. Zeibgeist (talk) 04:14, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve had a few questions about temporary accounts:

Can temporary accounts be autoconfirmed?
Are IP blocks for public IP addresses (like schools or libraries) being phased out?

~2025-31416-56 (talk) 15:37, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. No. 2. No. IP blocks overall will probably become significantly less common, because if it’s just a lone vandal most admins will stick to the temp-account block. But I’d expect that blocks on public networks won’t decrease by that much, since they’re the ones where you’re most likely to have multiple TAs vandalizing on the same IP. — Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 15:49, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Did the Wiki-community have any input on this implimentation? GoodDay (talk) 19:20, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Input on implementation? Yes, plenty, for years, mostly on Meta and Phabricator but also at WP:VPWMF in recent months. The ability to stop it from happening at all? No. The WMF exercised its WP:CONEXEMPT powers on advice of counsel. — Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 19:33, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This could just be me reading nothing into something, but… did you imply (English) Wikipedia was against temporary accounts somehow? If so, could anyone link to the dealio? Thanks CapnZapp (talk) 13:02, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t know if the community was for or against it. Certainly many expressed opposition, across various village pump threads, but it was never put to a vote nor a !vote, and it’s worth considering that voices in opposition are often louder. I’m not trying to insinuate anything, just acknowledging the reality that this is not a consensus-imposed policy. — Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 14:18, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I didn’t see anything about this. I really would like to see the discussion on how this affects vandalism if users can create multiple temporary accounts within a single day. —PerpetuityGrat (talk) 16:27, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a policy that’s going to prove to be a disaster. GoodDay (talk) 17:03, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I totally missed the village discussion. This hurts WP’s anti vandalism efforts greatly and confuses ipusers. Does it even matter if we leave talk page notices for the temp accounts then? —PerpetuityGrat (talk) 18:47, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand this correctly, IP user talk pages should not be receiving any new activity (other than mundane cleanup or maintenance edits) going forward. This means I should be able to remove hundreds of IP talk pages from my watchlist. Before I do that and potentially regret it down the line, can anyone think of a reason one might consider keeping said talk pages in their watchlist? – ZLEA ^TǀC 02:54, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

… instead they’re sent to mw:Help:Temporary accounts. What gives?

CapnZapp (talk) 13:01, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It’s because I just created this page from a redirect less than a week ago [2], so there might be a bunch of links scattered around from before this page existed that still refer to that old page. We should expect some teething troubles as we transition into this new era. Mz7 (talk) 18:43, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to understand whether the following had been taken into consideration but didn’t find anything:

Say you want to leave a message to a temporary user (or whatever IP editors will now be called).

But it’s been 89 days since that IP editors first edit (after the introduction of the new feature).

Does this mean every message posted to that user is wiped and will go unnoticed by the IP if they log in the next day (and get assigned a brand new temp account)?

I understand the point is for temp editors to start with a clean break every 90 days to help them stay anonymous, so I assume the answer is “yes”. This probably still should be explained and not taken for granted. CapnZapp (talk) 13:21, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Must Read

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Leave a Comment