This is not the page to request an account on Wikipedia. This page is for discussion of the Request an account page and its process. Please go back to the request an account page to read how to request an account. This page is automatically archived by MiszaBot II. Any sections without comment in at least 18 days will be moved to the archive.

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

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 18 days are automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Don't forget we have a template at {{Acc/granted}} for granting ACC rights. MBisanz ^talk 08:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi-

I'm new to ACC, and just saw a requested username pop up that seemed off to me. I kicked it up to an admin, but is there a list somewhere of example names that are no good? I mean, something like DonkeyRapingNunPuncher is pretty obvious, but I'm talking about more edge cases. Is this the right place to be discussing/asking questions? What server does the IRC# live on? Is the sky blue? Can I have a pony? Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 23:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As for questionable usernames, you can only refer to WP:U, and use common sense. I know some are "iffy". For other opinons on specific requests, feel free to join irc:wikipedia-en-accounts (on freenode). - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't ever be afraid to defer to admins- it's not like we sit around filling requests and thinking "I didn't have to do this, those silly newbs" (well, I don't at least). If after going over policy you still aren't sure, just hit that defer button. You can then watch and see what we do to give you a better idea of what is and isn't acceptable. L'Aquatique[parlez] 02:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the sky is blue. No, you can't have a pony. (Yes, I'm just writing this because I like to hear myself talk and not because I actually have anything relevant to say.) You may, however, have this HORSE. (Ok, the essay's not applicable here, but the title cracks me up every time. But then, I'm easily amused.)--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 03:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BUT I ALREADY GOTTA PONY! L'Aquatique gave her to me and her name is Sparkles and she can fly and she pees magical fairy dust and she is so awesome Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 03:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to browse through the guide for more information on the tool...(not on horses) —— RyanLupin • (talk) 06:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Ryan :) Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 03:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The really funny thing is that I thought I was linking to WP:HORSEMEAT.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 19:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmm, horsemeat. Apparently, frying in horse fat makes the best french fries in the world. I would also like you all to note that I avoided (with great difficulty) making rude horse jokes. Anyone who knows me IRL would be flabbergasted by this. HEAP YOUR PRAISE UPON ME. I'll stop cluttering this page now kthxbai Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 03:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now that those granted with the account creator flag can ignore the anti-spoof, I propose that the flag be given out way less erratically considering the possible consequences. Am I right in assuming this new feature is more damaging than rollback? —— RyanLupin • (talk) 05:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Recent events have shown that the flag may be too widespread. If the admins decide fewer people need access to the tool, I'm happy to be one of those booted off if required. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 06:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not agreed on that though. You're one of the most active people these days. I see your name at the online account creators almost every time I'm there. But about Ryan's suggestion, I also agree to that. Maybe we should emphasise more on "ACC is NOT a race". We shouldn't go about creating accounts just to get our count up... it'd be something like editcount-itis, but more damaging to Wikipedia. This should be done before giving the rights to a user of course, and not after he messes up. Chamal ^Talk ± 12:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to stripping the right from inactive users or users who misuse their priviliges. I don't think we need to start stripping it from those who are active and in good standing. However, since there never seems to be a big backlog, we probably don't need to give any more users access to the tool or accountcreator rights. If there starts to be a backlog, then we should re-open it, but until then, I think we're fine.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 16:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't the documentation be updated to suit the new changes to the interface? Chamal ^Talk ± 13:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Are you volunteering? ;-) — Rjd0060 (talk) 15:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I actually started it by taking screenshots and making drafts but then I realised it would take some time ——Possum (talk) 15:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A little bit's already been done, but new screenshots are definitely in order. Are all the changes live and sync'ed up yet?--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 22:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sure. Shall I get started then? But if I mess up, one of you guys will have to clean up after me ;) Chamal ^Talk ± 12:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious as to why this feature was removed? I can understand the feature not being available to new users but to be removed from those with ACC flags doesn't make much sense to me. Have there been instances of abuse? I ask only because I've been trying to do some work on there but I did not have the option to ban a user who is indefinitely banned on the en-wiki for vandalism and sock puppetry.

I currently have ACC rights, is it possible for the ban feature to be re-enabled for ACC flagged users? I don't believe this would be a particularly procarious move since the recent override ability has equal or more potential for abuse than the ban feature.

I'm interested to hear your comments. Kind regards,

—Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 16:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in full agree with cyclo here. I find it curious that it was removed. I haven't had to use it much. In fact, it was just a single time, and I will admit that I made an error, but these actions can be quickly undone. Users with the ACC flag certainly have the opportunity to commit abuse..and let's face it..the admins on the tool server aren't in the possession of superior mind and control that they should have it enabled while others do not. This just reinforces the bogus hierarchical standings. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 19:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite sure why this feature was removed either. I would suggest dropping SQL a note but it appears he's on wikibreak. — Possum (talk) 09:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]