Archives

Archive 1: Feb 07 - Nov 07 Archive 2: Nov 07 - Feb 08 Archive 3: Feb 08 - Aug 08 Archive 4: Aug 08 - Dec 11 Archive 5: 2012 - 2019 Archive 6: 2019 - 2021

It seems the software that is used to check for similar user names only reports one name, even if a proposed name is similar to more than one existing one. This can be a problem when a clerk looks at the one reported name, sees there are no contribs, and flags it with a recommendation that an admin create it.

For example: this morning, someone wanted to create "Maloo". They couldn't, because "Mai00" exists. But, "Mai00" has no contribs and was created long ago, so I recommended "Maloo" be created. SQL came along a while later and did so. So far, so good, all's well.

Now, what happens when, a few months from now, say after Maloo has numerous contributions, and after SQL and I forget, and someone requests "Maioo"? I checked, and when you try to create it, the software reports back there's a conflict with "Mai00". It doesn't mention "Maloo". Under our present scheme, a clerk would look, see that "Mai00" has no contribs, make a note of that, and an admin would likely create "Maioo".

This is not as widespread a potential problem as I first feared, since the software now prevents creation of two similar names to begin with; "Maloo" and "Mai00" wouldn't have both existed if it wasn't for us here at WP:ACC. When I think it through, I think this could only be a concern when:

1. An admin creates a similar name here at WP:ACC and the new account starts editing productively;
2. If the two similar names were both created long before the software started checking for similarity (if there was such a time... was there?), and one is editing and another isn't

So, this isn't a loophole an impersonator could use to game the system on an editor of their choice, only on the small pool of account names that fall into one of the two groups above. I don't think it's a crisis. But I still suggest we tweak the way we clerks report a case of ACC|s. As annoying as it may seem, when there is a similar user name reported by the software, We should probably spend some time manually checking Special:Listusers for all combinations we can think of. I did this when I first started here, but after seeing others not doing it, I got lazy, and lulled into the false impression that two conflicts would be caught by the software.

Either that, or we just say "no" to all similar name conflicts.

Or, I guess in a perfect world we could ask at Bugzilla for the software to be changed to report all possible conflicts, not just the first one it finds'

Thoughts? --barneca 14:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a bot might be able to list users with similar usernames by automatically looking through the user list each time a request is made. Tra (Talk) 17:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, good catch as always, Barneca! Hmm. I'd probably raise a bug. Even checking Listusers isn't going to show some... For instance, Doing a listusers on User:ONE would show User:OnE and User:ON3, but, you would not be shown User:0NE (with a zero). I'd say the only reliable, easy way to do this, is either by bot, or, preferably, by bug. It should be trivial, to implement, I think... I'll look at my copy of mediawiki in a bit :) I've also never raised a bug before, so, I'm not sure what needs to be done first.... SQL^{Query me!} 09:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This actually came up before, but I forgot to tell anyone. Someone requested an account with a name similar to "Danny"; the check brought up some other user with a similar name but no edits, but luckily I remembered User:Danny was an administrator and so knew there was a clash from my personal knowledge. This sort of thing may have happened before without anyone realising... --ais523 10:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Filed as bug 12232. SQL^{Query me!} 13:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, SQL. I was going to try to figure out how to file a bugzilla request, but the real world is limiting my Wikipedia time to about 2 minute windows every 30 minutes or so right now. I agree this is the easiest (and, most rational) approach. --barneca (talk) 16:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(u) I've also put in a bot request here. More input would be appreciated. SQL^{Query me!} 04:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems nothing really ever came of the bot request or bugzilla request. A prime example of what could have happened, though, from yesterday: Antispoof didn't pick up the conflict of User:p3dro with User:Pedro: [1]. --barneca (talk) 17:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note, people actually have to *vote* for bugs in bugzilla, to get them acted upon, usually. (Click "Vote for this bug") SQL^{Query me!} 21:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, now that seems wrong. If people need to vote then I will vote. If there is a bug, then there is a bug you shouldn't vote for a bug to be fixed! The Helpful One ^(Review) 11:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, right now, the bot doesen't seem to be working, so, we need to remember to do the archiving ourselves, as we go. SQL^{Query me!} 19:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For those, like me, that can't remember all the archiving steps, they are:

• Stalk User:SQL's contribs to see what he does
  1. Add {{useracc|EXAMPLE USERNAME}} to the bottom of the list at Wikipedia:Request an account/December 2007
  2. Delete the #EXAMPLE USERNAME section from WP:ACC
• Also, the bot isn't welcoming people either. So, if you want to be nice, you could put a welcome template on the page of the account you create. --barneca (talk) 20:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

D'oh! I knew I was forgetting something! Thanks, Barneca! :) SQL^{Query me!} 12:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I've been doing it myself even when the bot was working. As long as I do it before the bot does, the bot won't. Od Mishehu 08:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's back from its wikibreak. --barneca (talk) 17:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious what people think. How often should we delete this page? Sometimes I do it weekly, lately, more often. Is weekly good? Daily? I don't have a problem doing either, just curious what everyone else thinks. SQL^{Query me!} 07:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frequent deletion makes going back to review who-said-what-when on poorly formatted or complicated requests difficult (for non-admins, anyway), so daily would be pretty disruptive. I think every week is a good compromise between privacy and workability. But I don't feel strongly either way. --barneca (talk) 13:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why are people moving this page to a different page each time they delete? Wouldn't it make more since to just move it to Wikipedia:Request an account/delete every time to preserve the history? That's what I've always done at least...John Reaves 20:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure, that was the instructions when I started SQL^{Query me!} 21:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If, for some reason, an admin wanted to review the deleted history of the page after several cycles of rename/delete (I don't know, maybe a sockpuppet investigation or something, or maybe something went wrong with an account creation and you're trying to figure out what it was), would using a different page name make tracking the histories less messy? I assume even using Wikipedia:Request an account/delete over and over it's still possible to retrieve all the edit histories if necessary, but my guess would be that it's trickier, especially as the number of cumulative edits gets larger and larger and larger? You're the guys with the magical buttons, so you can tell me if my imaginings make any sense. --barneca (talk) 21:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would take a while to load eventually, but it'd be easier than trying to track certain edits down to 20+ pages of deleted history. John Reaves 21:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, well, it was just a guess. --barneca (talk) 21:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is done in response to the comments at #Page Deletions, specifically that if a page with a large history is repeatedly being deleted, it would cause a noticeable server impact. Tra (Talk) 22:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to [Wikipedia:Request an account/delete]] and its deleted edits or [Wikipedia:Request an account]] and the 500-1000 or so edits it has when it it is deleted? John Reaves 22:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know enough about how the database works as to exactly why the method used up to May 2007 caused performance problems. What I'm guessing might be the case is that each time the page is deleted, the deleted edits have to all be rearranged/processed, including those that are already deleted, which would mean that as the deleted history increases, the impact of deletion increases. Splitting deleted history across several pages would reduce this impact.

I'm not entirely sure how the deleted edits table is optimized for performance, but I'd imagine it's designed with the assumption that there would not be regular deletion of a single page. Tra (Talk) 23:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For those curious folks among us: User:ST47/newusers

• From User:ST47/newusers

John Reaves 22:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any way to find out what names are "hits" for the 'your name is too similar' on a given requested username? (it occured to me that this would be useful on WP:CHU and here also, and was wondering if there was anything admins who help here already use) - listusers works for a common prefix, but not if they differ by e.g. the first letter. —Random832 18:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(nevermind, just noticed that how to do it is to attempt to create the account using a non-admin account) —Random832 18:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The main method used here is to attempt to create the username whilst not logged on as an admin, although that wouldn't be suitable at CHU since it would mess up the process if the desired account name was created before the renaming took place. Another method that can be used is to 'guess' at what possible usernames are likely to be similar to the desired username (e.g. if someone requested "EXample", I could see if "Example" was active). It is also possible to see if the desired username is similar to that of a user who you are already aware of and recognise, although with the large number of users on Wikipedia, it is unlikely for anyone to be aware of most of the other active users. Tra (Talk) 18:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone should make a tool on toolserver to do this - or a bot. —Random832 19:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also this section a little further up the page. SQL put in a Bugzilla request for AntiSpoof to spit out more conflicts when attempting to create. If implemented, it would work well here, but (still) not so well at WP:CHU. If someone makes a tool, it would be quite handy both places, and would negate the need for the new feature. --barneca (talk) 19:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that since it will be seen by new/inexperienced users who come here wanting to create an account, and there is no other place to put an explanation, the deletion summary should, instead of "purging history" say something more friendly like "The account request page is currently down for maintenance, and will be back shortly." —Random832 19:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the time, it's usually gone for less than a couple seconds, but, I'll switch to that when I delete it SQL^{Query me!} 04:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I am new to WP:RQAC and would like to know what to do in the case of a password being included with the request. I thought that maybe I could help out with this page too but I do not know what steps to take. Thanks for help in advance Alexfusco⁵ 02:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I found an instruction page I will create the account and complete a request for oversight Alexfusco⁵ 03:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Can I just leave a reminder for administrators to clear the page history of Wikipedia:Request an account so that the personal details of the users are kept confidential.

I usually have to request for an administrator to clear the history for me on IRC, so for those of you that don't know how to do so, instructions can be found here.

Thanks!

The Helpful One ^{(Talk) (Contributions) (Review Me!)} 12:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, for above section, I changed the template for something else as well, to 2 days.

See this.

The Helpful One ^{(Talk) (Contributions) (Review Me!)} 15:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The bot has not made any edits recently has it been shut down? Alexfusco⁵ 12:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is an error message about it on ST47's talk page but he hasn't edited since 11 January so it might be some time before it's working again. Tra (Talk) 16:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Alexfusco⁵ 20:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ST47 has a procedure for reporting bot malfunctions at the top of his talk page, but it would take me "until the heat death of the universe" to understand how exactly he wants it done. Anyone more tech-savvy than me want to try to follow his directions? --barneca (talk) 21:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have submitted a request based on his instructions Alexfusco⁵ 21:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

As you can see, the template {{ACC|c}} produces:

Template:ACC

Now, I was just wondering why we picking the colour blue for the tick? I did a little bit of searching and found this image:

I was wondering if perhaps it would be better to change the image to green, to create the following template:

User:Thehelpfulone/Template:ACC

Any comments on this would be appreciated.

Thanks,

The Helpful One ^{(Talk) (Contribs) (Review)} 13:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since your idea makes slightly more sense than the status quo, I say 5.88 of one, 0.51 dozen of the other.

Just in case barneca-humor is unintelligible to normal humans, what I mean is, it doesn't really matter (it disappears in 5 minutes anyway), but if you like green better, go for it. --barneca (talk) 15:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like the blue better. It's pretty. Lara❤Love 15:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually looking at it again, it does look better :) -- The Helpful One ^{(Talk) (Contribs) (Review)} 16:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When dealing with a request for creation of an account, I got the message "error, can't send the e-mail". The account exists now, but the e-mail with the password is lost - what do I do? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Request an account/Administrators suggests requesting immediate usurpation from a 'crat. Algebraist 13:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; I've requested usurpations the same way. Tell the 'crats that the account is completely unusable because the only place the password to it was stored was in an email that bounced back to the Wikimedia servers, and they'll move it out of the way for you immediately. (WP:BN is probably the best place for such requests.) What confuses me is why the server creates the account at all in such cases... --ais523 14:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

See bug 12767 Alexfusco⁵ 02:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

If you see the following request:

You will notice that LaraLove had to add a note to say User:queenbee44 is the same as User:Queenbee44. I was wondering if somebody could create a template that would do that in one? Perhaps that would be easier? The Helpful One ^{(Talk) (Contribs) (Review)} 17:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reformatted above comment and removed e-mail/IP address It could possibly say something like "Wikipedia usernames are case sensitive apart from the first letter, which is always capitalised" although often if it needs to be mentioned, the comment would need to be written specifically to the situation which might make it more preferable to just write the comment out in full. Although, there's no harm in adding it as a parameter to {{ACC}} even if it isn't used all the time. Tra (Talk) 19:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've made it so that {{ACC|t|Example}} gives Template:ACC Tra (Talk) 19:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with me :) Thanks, The Helpful One ^{(Talk) (Contribs) (Review)} 20:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like we're gonna get Special:CreateAccount soon, so that we won't have to external link to it. Might affect some of our templates. See bug 11897 SQL^{Query me!} 15:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The existing links should hopefully still work but {{account request}} could probably be modified accordingly once the change goes live. It'll still need to be an external link since parameters need to be passed through the URL e.g. wpName=___. Tra (Talk) 00:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I didn't think about that not working via wikilinks :P Oh well :) SQL^{Query me!} 02:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some changes so that the interface seen when clicking the 'create' link on WP:ACC is slightly different to the standard user signup form seen by new users. This is primarily to make sure that if anyone wants to help out who isn't familiar with what to do, they'll see the relevant instructions. Plus, it removes text that's only relevant if you're a new user. I've done this in a similar way to how the upload forms work, by adding &uselang=en-acc to the end of the URL so the standard signup form is unaffected. Tra (Talk) 21:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great work, Tra, thanks! :) SQL^{Query me!} 08:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

Should we create an archive for this page, as it is reasonably long with comments from far back?

Any comments will be appreciated :)

--The Helpful One 19:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree very long talk page Alexfusco⁵ 23:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with archiving. Might want to stop archiving around Nov 30th; my thread about more than one AntiSpoof result is still sort of unresolved. (Whatever happened with that, anyway?) But there's a lot of stuff above that which no longer applies. --barneca (talk) 01:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should I do a manual archive or set up a bot, I think manual would be more useful as we don't talk loads so the bot would go crazy with archiving! --The Helpful One 19:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Manual, per K.I.S.S. --barneca (talk) 20:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done See: Wikipedia talk:Request an account/Archive 1 --The Helpful One 21:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

I would just like to bring up a discussion related to security on this page.

At present, an IP puts in their details for a request (a username and email address) and the account is then created. Once it has been created, after some time an administrator will clear the page history, by deleting and resorting the page. However, administrators will still be able to access these email addresses, even if they are personal and users don't want everyone to know them. In the worst case, the page is still historically accessible to any one of a thousand admins, who can obtain the email addresses for spam, or other hostile activities.

This came to light when I requested an oversight for this page, and the problem with oversighting is that although we usually do oversight personal information (including email addresses), in this case every page revision would be oversighted, and any comments, checking or recognition of people working at WP:ACC is also lost. Not good.

I have discussed alternative approaches to allow account creation without email addresses going on the public pages. Obviously an email address would be difficult to set up, as very limited amounts of people would be able to access it (ACC is presently handled by the community as a whole), which means that the account creation would probably have major backlogs. Administrators may take a break when someone emails them, and then the IP would be waiting for ages, in hope of a reply. But right now ACC builds up an indefinite history of personal information on Wikipedia editors that any admin now or future - or any hostile editor with patience to get a bit of a track record - can access.

Something needs to be done about this and there are some options,

1. Should we change the process for requesting accounts so that the user's request doesn't place personal information on the wiki?
2. Users should be made more aware of the risks of this or should we just accept it?
3. Should we just tell users that if they don't want their email on Wikipedia forever, email a certain email address, but then the email address problem arises that I have just explained about...

Any comments on this would be much appreciated, and perhaps a vote or a consensus should be set up?

Thanks, The Helpful One 19:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally, this page shouldn't be running on a wiki at all. What would be better is to have separate software or a MediaWiki extension, where a person can submit a username request, and that request can be approved/denied with no-one seeing the user's e-mail address except the person themselves, and no-one seeing their IP address apart from checkusers. Something like this would probably take a while to code and therefore, it would not be available in the near future.

Using what we have, the best we can do is advise people to use a disposable e-mail address. However, a lot of addresses given in requests appear to be the user's primary e-mail address so it seems that not everyone's following that advice. Perhaps one option is to make the advice about disposable e-mail addresses more prominent. Tra (Talk) 00:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A few threads above in the archive (!) agree that this is a problem, and I've wondered in one of them myself if this page shouldn't be shut down in favor of a mailing list. Sarah mentioned that such requests are occasionally received on unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org or unblock-enwiki@wikimedia.org , and they are usually performed. Assuming that they're doing the due diligence type stuff that the clerks are doing here (checking for conflicting names, etc.), that seems more rational to me. Way up in the archive someone mentioned that when a separate mailing list for new account creation was proposed, it was shot down by someone higher up on the food chain. I wonder if that should be revisited? It would put some of us out of a job, I suppose, but it would have significantly more privacy. --barneca (talk) 03:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That might be a good idea, but I would have no idea how to set that up. We would probably need help from admins or higher to set that up seeing as how an email address needs to be used etc? --The Helpful One 08:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We had bigger security problems than this, and by "we" I mean "we": Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Indefinite_suspension_of_WP:ACC. No longer an issue going forward (I just checked to make absolutely sure), but this concerns me. Now I'm having a hard time AGF'ing all the people that I was able to create an account for; I always wondered whether there were really that many people who couldn't read the captcha. I had no idea until I stumbled on the thread. Probably no need to discuss further on WP:AN (resolved, and beans), but thought regulars here would like to know, as it directly affects them (although the horse is pretty much out of the barn). Thanks for a fix are due to Simetrical, evidently. --barneca (talk) 03:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, this does seem as though it is a major problem. This security issue needs to be fixed, but perhaps this should be brought up again at WP:AN I was surprised that none of your user creations actually had contributions! According to my log Only one user [Special:Contributions/DarinRobbins|DarinRobbins] has actually contributed. It would appear that Od Mishehu has a few more users that contribute that he has created, according to this log. However, still most of the accounts are unused. Something needs to be done about this, but I am not sure what! --The Helpful One 17:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The AN thread indicates the problem is now fixed. My concern was the numerous accounts I've created before the fix were broadcasting my IP without me knowing it. Can't do anything about it now, but I'm still disturbed.

As for accounts not contributing: In theory, accounts that you and I create should have been creatable by the requester. Either they couldn't read the captcha (either thru use of a screen reader or not being familiar with English enough to recognize the words), or they didn't understand the instructions, or their IP bumped up against a 6-account limit. In all three of those cases, I can see how it's likely the account is going to be used mostly for it's watchlist capability. Admins are only creating accounts for people technically prevented from creating their own, so I'd guess their percentage of users making contributions would be higher. I think I said some of that fuzzily, but you know what i mean? The typical user of an account we can create, and the user of an account an admin has to create, are different. --barneca (talk) 17:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very true, but doesn't your IP address change if you simply unplug your router or reset it? You could try that to get a new IP address :) The Helpful One 17:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Static IP.  :( --barneca (talk) 17:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How long ago does a "last edit" have to be in order to determine whether an account is active or not? Tivedshambo (talk) 11:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's all a judgement call. It might be handy if we came up with some very rough rules of thumb, but it will likely ultimately fall to the admin who actually does the deed. My own suggestions, which I just pulled out of the air as a rough, average description of what I think generally happens here these days:

• If the similarly named account (SNA) has made zero contributions: 1 month after account creation.
• If SNA has made a few contribs the day of the account creation with nothing since: 1.5 months (the "purplepeopleeater criterion")
• If SNA has made a handful of edits, all within a month of account creation: 3 months
• If SNA has made a handful of edits, extending beyond a month of account creation: 6 months to 1 year, depending on length of gaps between editing sessions
• If SNA has made dozens of edits, but seems to have gone dormant: 1 to 2 years, depending on quantity
• If SNA was ever an admin/crat/etc, or heavily involved in article creation or Wikispace work: never.

Someone else's turn. --barneca (talk) 16:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I always based it on the similarity of the username, and, if the similar name has edited much. Anything more than a dozen or so contribs, unless it was 2+ years ago, I'd usually decline... SQL^{Query me!} 07:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My criteria (approximately) are to try to estimate whether the SNA is likely to ever become active in future. So for 0-contrib accounts, I normally wait a week or so, for accounts with a few contribs, I'll look at the contribs (e.g. if a user creates an article then it's A7d, often they won't edit again because they joined just for the purpose of creating it); I consider SNAs with good/large contributions as being more likely to edit in the future (maybe wishful thinking...). If the SNA has a history of coming back after long periods of absence I normally won't create if there are more than a few edits, and I won't create an account that clashes with either an admin or any user I've heard of (the theory being that having a similar username to anyone generally known is a bad idea). However, if the account names are dissimilar enough, I'll create regardless of activity (my (subjective) criterion for this is 'if both users became active, and one of them went for RfA, is there any chance that that user would be commented on based on the other user's contributions?'; this sort of mixup has actually been known to happen on occasion). --ais523 13:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice! Tivedshambo (talk) 17:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know, it's been tried before. See the archives for details, long story short, the devs said no, back in Feb 07. I'd like to get some input, regarding this subject now. Here's how I see it. Feel free to add to the Pros and Cons sections. I'd like to propose this as a private, closed-access list, same as Unblock-en-l. Perhaps named Accounts-en-l or something similar. SQL^{Query me!} 07:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Less spam for requestors.
• More privacy for requestors.
• Not breaking GFDL by constantly deleting ACC.
• Less hassle for admins, by not constantly deleting ACC.
• Easier to maintain logs of who requested what, when, where, and why.
• Private discussion among list members may occur regarding account creation.
• No longer a need fr use of a disposable e-mail address
• Able to guarantee with more certainty that the e-mail address used for the request is a valid e-mail address

• May be difficult to determine which requests have been fulfilled.
• Private discussion among list members may occur regarding account creation.
• Less open process.
• Would have to create a new template for replying to account requests as Template:ACC wouldn't be used.

  {{ACC}} wouldn't be used at all anymore, unless I'm missing something (I'm supposed to be working right now, so, it's possible :) ), I don't think a new template would be needed, as requests would be handled off-wiki. It would likely mean, however, that we would have to welcome users ourselves. SXT40 (talk) 04:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Loss of the ability to click a link to create an account with form fields pre-filled
• Have to welcome users ourselves. Per above comment by SXT40. --The Helpful One ^(Review) 17:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Can't recognize requests from recently vandalizing IP addresses. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 17:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I spoke with Tim Starling very briefly on IRC today, and, he said either the devs can set it up for us, or, Cary Bass. No mention was made of any requirements or anything of the like. If there's interest among the 'regulars' here, should we post to higher-traffic places, to generate further comment? SQL^{Query me!} 07:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Hey there, you have said about admins discussion, though as a 'regular' I would also like to help out on this... would this new mailing list be for admins only, or trusted users as well? --The Helpful One ^(Review) 13:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry :) I must have forgotten about that! :) Yes, I'd assume anyone interested and capable of participating here would be welcome :) (This is SQL's alternate account for insecure computers) SXT40 (talk) 04:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree. A non-admin account is necessary for finding if there are any similar usernames. While it is possible for an admin to attempt to create the account under an alternate username first to see which names are similar, it is much easier if a non-admin is able to do that step first. I'd say anyone with enough experience to know what they are doing should be able to access the list. Tra (Talk) 16:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the need for this. Have there been issues with users who have had their account created through ACC subsequently having issues with their information having been out there? I think this would just make account creation more difficult. There would be no way of knowing what requests have been filled without trying it yourself. Seems like a waste. And I don't really think there's much of a concern with GFDL as it's not like this is something someone's going to be all upset about getting deleted. Lara❤Love 06:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I actually see a bit of account creation on unblock-en-l as well, generally, we reply to the list, and the user when it's been done, so, once it's been filled it's pretty obvious that it's been handled. Another perk, is, the user is reminded of the account's creation, and does not have to re-visit the page (sometimes we don't get to them for a while), to see if it's been done yet. SQL^{Query me!} 06:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't use the mailing list for unblocking. I'm subscribed, but I don't use it. I use the IRC chan. Much easier. In fact, it would be handy to have IRC linked to this page. Then THO wouldn't have to come ping us to clear the room. Lara❤Love 06:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So would this channel be a new channel or merged with #wikipedia-en-unblock ? --The Helpful One ^(Review) 10:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A little off-topic, but, unblock-en-l generally has little to do with either #wikipedia-en-unblock or CAT:RFU... It's a mailing list, that serves the same purposes, but, is otherwise not linked to the on-wiki methods. Generally, I think it's used by folks who's talkpages are protected, or, that need to present more sensitive information (such as their IP address, I see mine as sensitive, for instance), or, for whatever reason chose to e-mail a request for unblock, instead of post it on-wiki. Sometimes, we also get requests at unblock-en-l, from users whom would like to set up accounts, but are blocked AO ACB (as in rangeblocks and shared IP's), as they would otherwise not be able to participate here. SQL^{Query me!} 10:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One last concern, and then I'll stop being irritating. I'm worried about the barrier to entry for new (experienced) users to help out on a mailing list rather than just on the site. I jumped in here with no experience and started helping, but I'm not sure I would've done the same to "accounts-en-l". Assuming that the help of people in this part of the site is necessary/welcome, what are the chances of old users stopping helping (or moving on) and no new users coming along to help out, leaving it neglected? —αlεx•mullεr 17:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's always a good amount of people at unblock-en-l creating accounts so the number of people involved will increase and presumably maintain the same turnover rate. John Reaves 04:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is anyone here able to create a tool to check username availability since you can't use templates on a mailing list? John Reaves 05:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I find quite useful is to just search for the relevent user page. If there's a user contributions link down the left hand side, the account exists. If there isn't a user contributions link, the account doesn't exist. Alternatively, you could just try to create the account (assuming it doesn't violate WP:U) and if the account already exists, you'll be told then. Tra (Talk) 16:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although I've never been involved with this, I'm opposed on the following counts... templates can't be used in emails, which would distort the process. A mailing list would either be admin-only, pointlessly increasing their workload, or would be open to anyone, enabling abuse of email addresses etc - I know they can do that now anyway, but at least it's an open process so such business can be easily monitored. Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 12:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Templates would be unnecessary if we had the mailing list, the only one I'm asking about is merely a convenience tool.
2. It's been stated several times that it would be neither admin only nor open to everyone, please read the discussion before commenting.

John Reaves 13:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, John. I did read the discussion. I think templates would be useful if there were to be a mailing list (hence my saying so!) since emails would then be in a standard format making processing easier. That's why income tax works with forms, not just "write it all down on the back of an envelope and send it in to us".

If something's not admin-only, it's essentially open to everyone, just like the rollback permission. Yes, there are quasi-restrictive controls, but in reality, there's little monitoring of who uses it and how. That's my view, actually. Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 13:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I don't know about you, but my e-mail does not allow for the use of templates in the messages. You apparently uninformed, there are processes, e.g. unblock-en-l (I think you're familiar with it), that work on a admin and trusted users system. Try and access that list and tell me if it's restrictive enough. John Reaves 13:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was just reminding you. I am well aware that email doesn't allow the use of templates, and that was why I opposed. I don't think that randomly-formatted emails would be better than carefully-formatted entries on WP:ACC. As for the access - and you're right, I am familiar with it, so go and celebrate your cleverness with a Martini!!!!!!!! :D lol - someone further up the page said: "anyone with enough experience to know what they are doing should be able to access the list". Quite. That's not what I call a properly-controlled access regime. Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 14:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not interested. Why? That seem like process wonking to me. It's a lot more controlled than the current "anyone can help or lurk around and watch" method. John Reaves 14:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No need to be rude, at all. As I see the situation, currently, anyone can abuse the process, but since it's absolutely open, we'll see how the abuse works. As I see the proposal, currently, an absurd and unregulated proportion of users will be able to abuse the process, and since it's done via private email, it's almost impossible to monitor any abuse. I'm for staying open, myself. Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 14:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any abuse that happens currently is detectable, so I'm not sure what you're talking about. John Reaves 14:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any abuse that happens currently is not detectable, and any abuse that would happen under the new system would not be, so it's better to be able to detect abuse. It's fairly simple. Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 14:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a lie, I don't think you understand what you're saying. How is abuse detectable? Abuse would be gathering the e-mails and IPs of people requesting accounts. How do you detect that? John Reaves 14:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(reset indent)

• If I don't understand what I'm saying, then it can't be a lie, which is a deliberate attempt to be untruthful.
• You said precisely that here, so I assume you made a mistake, then!!
• It's clear when an email address was there, what date, what IP etc, and if someone then complains, it's clear whether there's any merit to the accusation. Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 14:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops, I left out a "not" and have amended it accordingly. You seem to be grasping at straws in order to peruse whatever your personal agenda here is. The page history here is deleted and researching any claims of abuse would be tedious whereas a mailing list would have sortable and permanent archives. John Reaves 14:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question: The proposed mailing list will be staffed by admins and trusted users. Who decides who's a trusted user? WODUP 06:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would suppose, the list admins. Dunno who that would be just yet, either. SQL^{Query me!} 02:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What, roughly, would make a user trusted? WODUP 07:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe trusted isn't quite the right word, something along the lines of experienced/capable might be better. Basically, anyone that's been around long enough to find this page and realize/be willing to help. I can't imagine many people getting rejected or applying for that matter. It's a relatively small operation as it is, and new people don't come around that often. John Reaves 11:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for your answers. WODUP 07:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Barneca (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• SQL (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Tra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Alex.muller (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Thehelpfulone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (myself hopefully)
• JohnReaves (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Od Mishehu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Vivio Testarossa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Stwalkerster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• LaraLove (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Although I don't think LaraLove wants to join the mailing list (per discussion with her on IRC)
• Ryan Postlethwaite (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Soxred93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Dreamafter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Milk's Favorite Cookie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

As for moderators, they must be trusted by all, but mainly have common wit not to grant access to users who haven't helped out much (i.e. newbies). As far as I can tell, JohnReaves (talk · contribs) could be a list admin, although I haven't seen him here lately (though that could just be me). I am unsure who else could be a list moderator, I would like to be one to help out, but that is you guy's decision of whether or not you trust me! I think we can discuss who else could be a list moderator. The Helpful One ^(Review) 13:27, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm...I would add myself, but I don't know what the community would think of me on the mailing list yet. I have just started to help out here, but I think I have a fair grasp of what's happening. Would the community be fine with me bring a trusted user yet? Soxred93 | talk bot 18:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're fine. I don't think we need to be listifying people and saying who is trusted and who isn't. In terms of admins and mods, I think SQL and I were going head up the tedium adminnery (adding people to the list basically) and find some experienced people to do moderating (which consists of filtering spam basically). John Reaves 18:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I could help with the moderating. --The Helpful One ^(Review) 18:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if I'm trusted but, I would be willing to give it my all. ~ Dreamy ^§ 02:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You sure are :D --The Helpful One ^(Review) 11:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about me? --ais523 11:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

You and me both :-( —  Tivedshambo  _(t|c) 11:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say if you've managed to create some accounts without getting yelled at you're fine. Or if you happen to be the leading creator of accounts (Ais523 ;). John Reaves 12:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Either first or second. Taking account of User:Tra non-admin's contribs leaves Tra beating me in the table above, but then User:ais523 non-admin has a few account creations too... More seriously, though, I've thought of a potential problem. At the moment it takes both a non-admin account (to check) and an admin account (to create) to create a similarly-named account. We'd have to sort out some method to communicate check results on the mailing list, prevent wasting time with duplicate creations, etc... Coordinating the original threads might be quite difficult. However, I suspect it will still be possible and run relatively smoothly if we make sure that we're organised before the problems come up. --ais523 13:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Could I be added?   jj137 (talk) 12:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's handled via the mailing list itself nowadays by its moderators; subscribe at [2], then send an email to User:Accounts-enwiki-l via the onwiki email system, and someone already on the list will add you. --ais523 12:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• JohnReaves (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• SQL (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

I am already running unblock-en-l which has a similar trusted user system, which we could port over, and of course that means I know what I am doing. I would not mind setting up the list, though I may not be active moderating it if so. Prodego ^talk 02:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be fine, by 'moderating' if it is just sorting through spam I could do that. --The Helpful One ^(Review) 11:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind helping to moderate - I've got experience with the process so understand who we can trust with what and experience with the MedCom mailing list. Either way, I'll happily be part of the whole process. Ryan Postlethwaite 04:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also would not mind moderating, I have great experience. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 20:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please subscribe here and send a confirmation e-mail to accounts-enwiki-l-owner@lists.wikimedia.org that tells us your username and experience level with WP:ACC (newbies welcome too). Be patient as we sort the requests, pick mods, etc. WP:ACC well remain active for the time being. Thanks, John Reaves 18:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I have created User:Accounts-enwiki-l to be used to confirm that the user is sending the email, like User:Unblock-en-l is used to check for the unblock-en-l mailing list, this can be used for our one. The email address is accounts-enwiki-l-owner@lists.wikimedia.org so it will go to the list admins. --The Helpful One ^(Review) 19:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JohnReaves/SQL - please accept the confirmation message that went to that email address. --The Helpful One ^(Review) 19:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed. Also, please note we aren't soliciting for moderators, just subscribers. We'll sort that out later. John Reaves 20:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, how do we plan to get users to send these emails then? --The Helpful One ^(Review) 21:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean. John Reaves 22:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think HelpfulOne means whether or not to put a big red flashing box on WP:ACC that says "Send us email!!" Or, you know, something a little more low-key maybe... :) —αlεx•mullεr 22:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, not quite yet. Let's wait until the list is settled first. If you have any questions about the list you can send an e-mail to it to start a discussion thread. John Reaves 22:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I thought about it for a bit today, while I was out trying to fix a brake line in 20 degree weather :)

Here's what I think should work, for a plan to test the e-mail list, and, start phasing out ACC. I'd like to start implementing some of these soon, but, I wanted to see if anyone could phrase some of it better, or, if there's anything I missed.

1. Place {{subst:notice|Please note that this page will be replaced shortly by an e-mail list at accounts-enwiki-l@lists.wikimedia.org. If you would like to volunteer at this list, the subscription page can be found at https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/accounts-enwiki-l.}} on Wikipedia:Request an account/top, or, something similar.
2. Change MediaWiki:Antispoof-name-conflict to offer users two options, accounts-enwiki-l, or, WP:ACC. Done, but, I'm not 100% satisfied with how I did it yet.
3. Replace ACC with accounts-enwiki-l at MediaWiki:Blockedtext Done
4. Let both run for maybe a week or 2 (or not? What do others think?), so any potential problems have time to surface.
5. Mark WP:ACC as {{historical}}, and, check over Special:Whatlinkshere/Wikipedia_talk:Request_an_account, for any templates or instructions that may need changed.

   Probably would be a better idea to replace WP:ACC with a page detailing how one may request an account. A lot less wikilinks to track down that way, and, it seems to make more sense. Placeholder for a proposed version here, in case anyone has ny ideas. SQL^{Query me!} 04:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   I proposed a version. WODUP 05:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   ...and helper instructions here. WODUP 10:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions? :) SQL^{Query me!} 01:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Excellent work, WODUP! :) Looks good to me, but, I did add a {{caution}} to it. Anyone have any comments, or changes? SQL^{Query me!} 11:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what the antispoof bit looks like rendered, btw.

SQL^{Query me!} 01:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Folks, SQL's image here makes it very clear why bugzilla:12232 is so important. Now go vote for it.</demand></ad> Also, I changed MediaWiki:Antispoof-name-conflict to specify WP:ACC by name. WODUP 04:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's how I'd prefer that it looked (except, not completely like crap! :P ): SQL^{Query me!} 04:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:SQL/Test1

Some of you may have noticed that I have set up a proposed revision at User:Soxred93/Request an account. I think that we have a fairly good grasp on the mailing list, and the toolserver tool works eficiently, that we should put the mailing list into action. What do others think should be done? Soxred93 | talk bot 22:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that we now use the toolserver form, looks good to me. Anyone object to moving it over ACC? SQL^{Query me!} 20:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We are completely shutting down WP:ACC now, is that correct? --The Helpful One ^(Review) 20:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. I'm gonna go ahead and be bold, and pull the plug, while it's not busy, now. SQL^{Query me!} 20:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done SQL^{Query me!} 20:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have been talking with the developers on their IRC Channel, and Tim Starling has stated that if we manage to get a consensus on increasing the number from 6 to <random>, he will change it to that number meaning that non-admins helping put with the accounts-enwiki-l will be able to create more than 6 accounts and not be faced with the Acct creation throttle hit after 6 account creations.. so..

1. Stronger than average Support - We have to recruit more admins to fill up requests, thats showing something! Soxred93 | talk bot 01:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Comment - Actually, I thought maybe a new user group might be in order, like the rollbackers have. That way, a rate limit might be out of a question. Soxred93 | talk bot 03:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2. This should be on the village pump, but certainly - we really need to rise the limit because ACC on the mailing list is seriously backlogged, with a few non admins handling the majority of requests but limited because of the throttle. I also don't see any problems with vandals creating multiple accounts from one username - if we have the problem in the future, we can revisit. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Since I always attempt to create each account as a non-admin first to check for similarities, the limit is a bit annoying. I think I've had to hang up my router for about the third time today. Tra (Talk) 19:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. I've hit the limit with ais523 non-admin before now. It's hard to figure out where the balance of convenience/preventing abuse is, though. One possible alternative idea would be to use bot-flagged (but human-operated) accounts to do account creation (they could be blocked with account creation enabled to prevent them being used for illicit purposes), because bots aren't affected by rate limits (or if they are affected by this particular rate limit they could be made immune to that). Increasing the limit would be simpler, though. --ais523 12:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
5. 200% Super Strong Support - I have been clearing out the backlogs, and the limit is making me go mad! --The Helpful One ^(Review) 13:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. Total complete absolute wholehearted support - I agree, this really would help clearing the backlog (which is now double digits!!!), and I agree with Soxred, perhaps a new usergroup like rollbackers could be created, like "AccountCreators" or something along those lines that overrides the limitation, and you would get this flag when you are approved to see requests on the mailing list, however, that is (again) just a suggestion. --FastLizard4 (Talk•Index•Sign) 04:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support Anyone else find this ironic?--Werdan7^{T @} 01:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support I keep running into this! - Milk's Favorite Cookie 01:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support I run into this as an admin, too. (It seems SQLBot is exempt tho). SQL^{Query me!} 03:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
10. Currently at limit support Yes, I feel we need this limit either increasing, or preferably a new user group. Stwalkerster [ talk ] 00:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support I think its a good idea Alexfusco⁵ 14:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support both increasing the limit and the "account creators" user group. Think outside the box 14:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tim said that he would increase the limit if consensus was demonstrated. Do we need to demonstrate consensus here, amongst ourselves, or community-wide consensus by drawing wider attention to this poll? Others have mentioned creating a user group that wouldn't be affected by the limit. Has anyone talked with a dev about this? .ιΙι.WODUP.ιIι. 10:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a good idea, for example creating a user group called "Account creators" -- or something like that, where there is less of a limit, I just got hit with the limit this very moment -- it is so annoying. As regards to a wider community consensus, maybe it is required, but we made the move without a wide community consensus. Perhaps a post at the village pump will do nicely. Please can we get this sorted out very quickly, this limit is extremely annoying! --The Helpful One ^(Review) 00:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have been WP:BOLD and added a notice to the Village pump. Now we can only wait. --The Helpful One ^(Review) 14:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have a consensus, as above... can we get this going then, this limit is extremely frustrating. --The Helpful One ^(Review) 11:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I suggest we raise it to 20 new accounts per IP per day, or an unlimited number for the new user group. Ideas? Stwalkerster [ talk ] 12:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SITUATION UPDATE: I spoke to Tim Starling, on IRC. He said that if we wanted a new user group... we needed to get a consensus in other places too. Therefore I have submitted a bug on BugZilla. Please vote for it, so we can get this over and done with! --The Helpful One ^(Review) 12:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably going to take awhile as it appears that the Ip-blockexempt bug still has not been resolved and it has more votes (most likely that one would happen first). FunPika 21:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The second option on WP:ACC, "Click here to request an account by plain mail" should be removed in my opinion. If that is done, it makes it easier by forcing users to use the interface, cutting (or eliminating) the malformed requests, a link to view the contributions by the IP that requested it, and no spam (because I did find some spam from the list in my inbox today). Of course, if the tool breaks down however, there is a message asking you to send it using plain mail. Does anyone else agree with me? --FastLizard4 (Talk•Index•Sign) 04:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been BOLD and removed it. However, if User:Soxred93/ACC is set to "down", then it disables the tool, and replaces the big red link at the bottom to an email link. Soxred93 | talk bot 04:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How accessible is the form? Can it be used with screen readers etc? Dan Beale-Cocks 08:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As some know, there are moves to make IP exemption available on an exceptional basis for non-admins with good cause (roughly speaking). The code is in place, and a policy to operate it exists. The idea is, any admin can assign this right in certain circumstances, and if abused it can be readily removed upon "credible evidence or concern of abuse."

I've been considering how users would request this. There are two issues: 1/ the request will often not be one that should be publicized on-wiki (for example I gather it shows up in rights logs but not in Special:Listusers), and 2/ some degree of control and wider review is desirable, to allow more eyeballs when a user is requesting a right that will mostly defeat technical sock detection measures.

I would like to ask if requests for IP exemption could also be handled by the request an account mailing list. Rationale being:

1. It keeps it off wiki as required.
2. It means a user seeking the right doesn't need to have an account, enable wiki-mail, find a random admin, and email them, or ask on their talk page.
3. It allows extra eyeballs on requests, which is important for a request of this nature.
4. It draws a clear line on exemption "on the quiet", a possible source of abuse. Any admin can still grant it, but builds into it that others will be aware even if only in passing.

   (If the right may only be given following an email request, then an admin who wishes to try what User:Archtransit tried and covertly enable socking, is greatly inhibited -- the requests by email will have other eyeballs, and the loophole of "I had a private request" whereby the right is given without list-eyeballs will be evident as a breach of IP exemption policy.)

5. Both activities are quite closely related as functions:- ie, the creation of accounts, and the giving of IP exemption to accounts, at user request.
6. One more active list is better than two less active (cuts down list sprawl/keeps it simple).

Thoughts?

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think, this would be a good way to go, and that we could handle it. Any guess as to how many requests per day this will result in? SQL^{Query me!} 03:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think unblock-en-l would be better as most users there are admins, have more experience, and there is far more trust involved in acceptance to the list. John Reaves 03:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an admin, so I would be unable to deal with this. I'm pretty sure that a fair few of us on this are also not admin (that's the impression I get, not based on much really), hence the admins on this list will be asked to both create accounts that normal users can't, and deal with this. I think a more admin-based list would be more suitable. However, if it's only the odd request now and again (eg. 1 a day), then I don't see too much more bother. Stwalkerster [ talk ] 11:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody really knows what demand to expect; once the initial requests die down I would think it would not flood the system. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone, please leave me a note when I'll be able to use it to help out here. Thanks. WODUP | Yo 10:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, you can use Soxred93's version by creating an account on it, and then asking him, or a toolserver admin to confirm you. --The Helpful One ^(Review) 16:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on my recreation of it, sorry, it's not coming along very fast :( SQL^{Query me!} 04:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone's curious about where I am with this project, see here :) SQL^{Query me!} 06:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At the present time, the Toolserver admin have stated that they have no involvement in this project, so better ask User:Soxred93 instead. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 20:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tried that first. Soxred isn't working on it anymore. WODUP | Yo 05:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I'm almost done :) SQL^{Query me!} 12:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(copied from the mail list) Alright, SoxRed93 asked me to re-write his account creation tool, Incubez.

I've done so, and, we switched over today.

Relevant info:

• Request URL: http://tools.wikimedia.de/%7Esql/acc/
• Account creator interface: http://tools.wikimedia.de/%7Esql/acc/acc.php
• Bugs / Feature requests / info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SQL/ACC

Yes, this one too, requires account approval, but, we've got about 10 people doing that now.

This new version will also soon feature automated welcoming (even customizable!)

Administrative users may also edit the request interface, in my version.

And, it will not flood the mail list, with requests. (It will, flood the IRC channel, however :) #wikipedia-en-accounts on irc.freenode.net btw.

I may, elect to have it mail the list a simple status report, one, maybe two times a day. That's all.

I know, we've been through all sorts of changes, but, I hope for this to be the last one for a while.

Thanks everyone, for your help, SQL^{Query me!} 17:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SQL, thank you for your work on this. I swear, though, it's like technology is turning on me this week. I registered myself on this tool, but now I can't log in. When I do, it reloads the login page. If I try to re-register, it tells me that I'm already registered. Help please. WODUP 15:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure it's not saying anything above the login form when it reloads? Worst case, I can delete your account, and you can start over, if you'd like.... SQL^{Query me!} 18:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just Not logged in. Please log in. WODUP 19:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, well, I deleted your account, so you can try again. HTH, I've gotta get to work. SQL^{Query me!} 19:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since the old on-wiki account creation system was abandoned, I've been working with Aaron Schulz to get the account creation extension for the MediaWiki software, originally developed for Citizendium, adapted for possible use on Wikipedia. This extension has the benefit of being able to directly access the database and use various functions that exist in MediaWiki as well as providing a consistent interface for new users and account creators through the use of special pages, as well as not having to rely on the toolserver. I have a wiki set up if you'd like to test the interface. Mr.Z-man 02:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've just finished checking this out and it definitely should be something we implement here. I've always hated the idea of relying on the toolserver for this stuff. This extension has many benefits and is much better than any other option that I can think of. Please get this to en.wp!!! - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who's spent MANY hours developing something off-wiki, that does about the same, after messing with it, I really think that this is a better way to go. SQL^{Query me!} 04:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've never been involved in this process, but having just looked at the current tool and the proposed extension, the extension is (no offense to SQL) much easier to use. The main benefit I see is that it's all onwiki - people don't need to register a new account and get approved to help out, they just hop over to the special page and click about. To prevent abuse of the system, we *may* want to restrict permission for this to auto-confirmed accounts (4 days old) or something, but from an outsider's view, this looks like a good idea. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if you're talking about autoconfirmed accounts to fulfill requests, it won't be like that. It will be administrators and / or a special new user group doing it. So not everybody will have access to this system. It is only set up this way for the test wiki, so that people can try it out. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd thought about doing that, yes. How many non-admins do we currently have helping out? Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None taken, by the way. It was all we could do, as the Mailing list proved unwieldy, but, the previous on-wiki solution had privacy issues. A stop-gap solution, until this extension was available, was the way I saw it. SQL^{Query me!} 05:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great. Happy‑melon 15:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) And to extend on the permissions issue, according to the list SQL just gave me, 14 of the 32 approved users are not admins, so we would definitely need to get a dev to install a new permission mask to allow those guys to keep assisting. List is here at least for another week or so for anyone who cares - if it's not there, check my April archive. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adding another user group could be done. As this is a minor task, I would suggest making it an automatic promotion based on editcount/days since registration/emailconfirmed. Mr.Z-man 19:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I, personally, would oppose any sort of automatic granting. It should be manually granted to those who are interested in helping, and can be trusted with the information (like we do now). - Rjd0060 (talk) 20:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that with the extension, only the person making the request ever sees their password. Voice-of-All 21:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm not talking about the password. The reason we stopped doing account requests on WP:ACC directly was mostly because of privacy concerns (IP address) which if I am correct, people fulfilling requests with this extension will be able to see. - Rjd0060 (talk) 21:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The right to see IP addresses is separate from the right to confirm account requests, so seeing IPs could be restricted to only admins, however if the group is manually granted to non-admins I would support all users able to grant account requests being able to see IPs. Mr.Z-man 21:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As would I, which is why I didn't like the idea of automatic granting. - Rjd0060 (talk) 21:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For this right, I'd actually be for manual granting. Only a portion of users are interested, so we might as well restrict it and avoid mischief. Voice-of-All 21:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely. - Rjd0060 (talk) 21:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As do I! When is the new extension going to be installed! :D If I am correct, then all admins on the tool currently will become admins on the extension? The Helpful One ^(Review) 09:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There aren't necessarily "admins of the extension". You will either have access, or not. I imagine there will be a new usergroup added (similar to "rollbacker") and access to create accounts will be granted manually. - Rjd0060 (talk) 13:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely prefer the permission to be assigned to a separate user group, added or removed by 'crats, and not automatically granted with 'sysop' group. If I've read the discussion right, there are only ~50 users involved in the process, so managing this extra user right won't be too much of a burden on our crats. I can't see any reason why two tiers of account creators are required in such a small group: let everyone see IPs. Happy‑melon 20:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a reason to restrict this to the crats. There aren't enough of them (active), and they are busy enough, as evident from the typical backlogs for crat stuff. I believe the plan thus far was to have administrators assign the group. - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But if there are only going to be 30-50 people involved, only half of whom are admins, what's the point in giving access to 1,485 other users who don't need it? It is handling sensitive information, so there's no need to give it out like candy. That said, as long as the permission isn't bundled into the 'sysop' user group, there's no particular reason why admins couldn't assign it (to themselves, if necessary). As all rights changes are logged, it isn't possible for a rogue admin to sneak themselves in. My point is basically, don't bundle the permission with 'sysop', because you're just giving sensitive information to a group, 99% (literally :D) of whom do not need to see it. Make it a separate, manually-assigned group, and it doesn't really matter who it's assigned by, you still retain the necessary privacy. Happy‑melon 19:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean it was appropriate to give it to all users who are admins, just that admins should be the ones able to assign the right (I see no reason to restrict it to the bureaucrats). - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then we're reading from the same page :D. I don't care who assigns it, as long as it's only given to those who need it. Happy‑melon 20:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are only ~30-50 users involved right now, as this is probably the third time we've changed how we process account requests in a few months. The present system that I designed has only been in place for a couple weeks. Probably 5 people have processed nearly all the account requests (I know, every couple days, I wind up having to process 50-100 when the backlog gets real bad). When it moves on-wiki again, I suspect it will be FAR more popular, as it was prior to the move. SQL^{Query me!} 04:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This looks really good, although there are a few things which could cause problems. Firstly, if a request is put 'on hold', there is no obvious way to respond to the e-mail sent other than by submitting a new request, and in that case it would be simpler to just reject the request. Also, there doesn't seem to be any way of checking for similar usernames. Tra (Talk) 21:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that I understand your first point. As far as checking for similar usernames, I'm checking on that. However, if the software does not check automatically when the name is requested, its simple enough for us to check via Special:Listusers, and deny the request if there is one too similar. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually a lot less simple than you might think. User:One wouldn't show up anywhere near User:0ne, for instance. SQL^{Query me!} 20:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I've just tried it and the software does not let you request an account that is too similar to an existing account, so we should be just fine when it comes to that. - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As there haven't been any objections to switching to this system, I plan on requesting it soon. The only thing that needs to be settled is the user rights issue. There are 2 user rights to give out with this (3 actually, but we have no use for the third).

confirmaccount gives users access to the system. They will be able to see all open, on hold, and recently rejected requests. This includes username, email address and any additional info they choose to provide.

requestips allows users to see the IP address of the person making the request.

These rights can be automatically assigned to a user group (like sysop) or a new user group can be created to be manually assigned. Mr.Z-man 18:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have decided to have a new user group - called "Account Creators", with both of the rights? --The Helpful One ^(Review) 18:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And admins able to grant this right? Mr.Z-man 20:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but they shouldn't have it automatically - I think that they should be able to grant it to themselves, but not automatically be able to use it, when such a small minority of admins help out at ACC. --The Helpful One ^(Review) 20:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's my understanding of the situation, and my preference - both permissions assigned to 'createaccount', with the right to add users to or remove users from that group assigned to 'sysop'. Happy‑melon 20:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All the above is looking good to me, Mr.Z. I'm ready to get this going. - Rjd0060 (talk) 21:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bug filed. https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13782 Mr.Z-man 01:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you have an account on the toolserver tool, please log in and clear a few of the more than 200 outstanding requests ([3]); I ran into the IP account creation limit with my other account. WODUP 05:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IMO there really needs to be some sort of exemption. Either whitelist the toolserver from the captchas or something. I could login with my bot account which is exempted from the 6 in 24h account creation but sitting through 200 is tedious. A singular bot that could create accounts would help wonders :( Q ^{T C} 02:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please help me. I am trying to work on an a article I have writtng at home an cannot log in to my accokutn. It will not let me stet setu up a new one. My user name is kupferberg.1

Natalie Kupferberg76.181.46.131 (talk) 17:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)Natalie KUpferberg[reply]

You or someone else has sent a password reminder to your e-mail address, so try looking through your e-mail inbox or junk mail folder for the e-mail from wiki@wikimedia.org with a new password for you. Tra (Talk) 19:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]