Citation for GDPR accounts not being test accounts
There is a thread on the forums asking about GDPR accounts, and one user hypothesized that GDPR accounts were created as test accounts, then another user replied (referencing this article) that they weren't test accounts but users who wanted their data wiped under the GDPR, to which the user responded saying that the claim was flagged as "citation needed." To my knowledge we don't have any official Scratch Team statement about GDPR accounts, but in my opinion this seems obvious enough that it doesn't need a citation. What are everyone's thoughts on this?
jvvg (talk | contribs) 01:47, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Should We Add as Many GDPR Accounts as we Can?
I saw the new 'Known GDPR Accounts' section on this page and decided to find some more GDPR accounts. I was able to find gdpr0000007 and gdpr0000008, but I noticed the text 'There is likely thousands of more accounts that have yet to be discovered', and thought that if we added EVERY GDPR account the list would be very, very, very long. So... should we keep it restricted to the most known GDPRs, or add as many until the list gets too long?
-The_EpicXD (talk | contribs) 02:51, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
- I think the list should be replaced with a list of example GPDR accounts that have noteworthy features (for example, gdpr0000001, the one that goes higher than the character limit, and one with a profile picture).
Jammum (π¬ Talk - βοΈ Contribs) 17:23, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
- The list is already a list of examples, maybe it could be most-known GDPR accounts? -The_EpicXD (talk | contribs) 20:32, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
- The list is already a list of examples, maybe it could be most-known GDPR accounts?
wrgsfhwbxvb
 Unresolved (see all...)
|
|---|
The article states:
| β | wrgsfhwbxvb who was created earlier in real time, without having their join date altered. | β |
Earlier, this statement was removed as this was not true. (This API link shows that they joined on 16th October, 2007; andresmh's API link shows that they joined on the 5th March, 2007.) However, as that edit got reverted, this definitely needs some discussion to prevent an edit war. 
Purin2022 | π¬Talk | πContribs | π±Scratch 20:29, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
- cough cough my edit cough cough. I think that just because wrgsfhwbxvb has id 1, doesn't mean he's the first. He had EXTREME luck (and i think turned into gdpr001 idk and idc if im wrong)
Gatgatcode ( Talk | Scratch | Contributions ) 22:16, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
- As a user on the 1.x site and someone who has a basic familiarity with it, I can confirm the user existed then, and that on the 1.x site the user ID field was just a MySQL AUTO_INCREMENT field. This would fit with that user being the first. The join date is also before any accounts that haven't had their join date modified (the January 2000 for GDPR accounts is years before the Scratch website even started development). jvvg (talk | contribs) 22:19, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
- @jvvg There were 138 users before andresmh??? Never knew that Gatgatcode ( Talk | Scratch | Contributions ) 22:43, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
- (atleast i think thats what you meant) Gatgatcode ( Talk | Scratch | Contributions ) 22:44, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Gatgatcode Yes, there were. All of them were deleted after-the-fact however, so my assumption is that they were all test accounts. jvvg (talk | contribs) 01:45, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
- @jvvg Should we resolve this? Gatgatcode ( Talk | Scratch | Contributions ) 13:26, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
- @jvvg Should we resolve this?
- @Gatgatcode Yes, there were. All of them were deleted after-the-fact however, so my assumption is that they were all test accounts.
- (atleast i think thats what you meant)
- @jvvg There were 138 users before andresmh??? Never knew that
- As a user on the 1.x site and someone who has a basic familiarity with it, I can confirm the user existed then, and that on the 1.x site the user ID field was just a MySQL AUTO_INCREMENT field. This would fit with that user being the first. The join date is also before any accounts that haven't had their join date modified (the January 2000 for GDPR accounts is years before the Scratch website even started development).
@Gatgatcode I don't think this actually resolves the original point. My thoughts on that are that it really isn't relevant to this article which account is the first created account on Scratch anyway, just that it isn't the GDPR accounts since their join date is overridden to a date before it was even possible to create a Scratch account. The actual discussion about wrgsfhwbxvb and ST test accounts honestly isn't really relevant to this article. jvvg (talk | contribs) 17:56, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
- @jvvg — Yeah, the whole what-is-the-first-account-created thing isn't related to GDPR accounts. Proposed deletion.
Purin2022 | π¬Talk | πContribs | π±Scratch 18:16, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
Support @jvvg, Purin2022 To be honest, I do agree this has nothing to do with this article Β―\_(γ)_/Β― Gatgatcode ( Talk | Scratch | Contributions ) 18:41, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
- @gatgatcode — Hang on - how do we do it? I mean, we still have to clear the misconception that the first GDPR account isn't the first account ever, which means that we have to include that unrelated thing. Purin2022 | π¬Talk | πContribs | π±Scratch 19:08, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Purin2022 I'm not sure that we have to, however it could be useful information. We can just say it's not the first, but not say who is the first. A link to List of Misconceptions about Scratch is enough in my opinion. As for whether or not to include that it's not the first account...maybe?! Just saying the join date was reset is definitely useful information, but whether or not it's the first is a bit more iffy. I would lean towards it but what does everyone else think?
Mrsrec (talk | contribs) 01:55, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support @Mrsrec (again) That's probably the most logical. Might make a test page to see how it will work out. Gatgatcode ( Talk | Scratch | Contributions ) 14:40, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
- GDPR Accounts Test Page :) Gatgatcode ( Talk | Scratch | Contributions ) 15:06, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
- GDPR Accounts Test Page :)
- @Purin2022 I'm not sure that we have to, however it could be useful information. We can just say it's not the first, but not say who is the first. A link to List of Misconceptions about Scratch is enough in my opinion. As for whether or not to include that it's not the first account...maybe?! Just saying the join date was reset is definitely useful information, but whether or not it's the first is a bit more iffy. I would lean towards it but what does everyone else think?
- @gatgatcode — Hang on - how do we do it? I mean, we still have to clear the misconception that the first GDPR account isn't the first account ever, which means that we have to include that unrelated thing.
@Gatgatcode — To be honest we might a) make a new subheading for the first paragraph instead b) add {{main|<List of Misconceptions about Scratch>}} which replaces the {{see also}}. Also, I don't think ending a paragraph without further explaination isn't a great idea. We can add 'The first account to be created was wrgsfhwbxvb[ref here]' to the end of the paragraph, which is sort of the right size.
PS: Please don't use contractions in articles. Purin2022 | π¬Talk | πContribs | π±Scratch 15:48, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
- In fact, I've gone ahead and boldly done that. Please feel free to revert my changes if you do not agree. Purin2022 | π¬Talk | πContribs | π±Scratch 15:53, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
- Looks fine by me @Purin2022. Gatgatcode ( Talk | Scratch | Contributions ) 17:47, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
- Looks fine by me @Purin2022.
