Wikipedia talk:Request an account: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →

SQL (talk | contribs)

2 user groups
28,479 edits
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Aervanath (talk | contribs)
Extended confirmed users
13,902 edits
SQL (talk | contribs)
Autopatrolled, Administrators
28,479 edits
→Note: new section
Line 119: Line 119:
:Yes, I just unchecked the box, and now it works fine. So I will leave it unchecked for now. Is this something that should be fixed? Thanks!--[[User:Aervanath|Aervanath]] [[User talk:Aervanath|lives]] [[Special:Contributions/Aervanath|in]] '''''<font color="green">[[WP:O|the Orphanage]]</font>''''' 07:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
:Yes, I just unchecked the box, and now it works fine. So I will leave it unchecked for now. Is this something that should be fixed? Thanks!--[[User:Aervanath|Aervanath]] [[User talk:Aervanath|lives]] [[Special:Contributions/Aervanath|in]] '''''<font color="green">[[WP:O|the Orphanage]]</font>''''' 07:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
::{{Done}}Problem fixed by {{U|RockMFR}}--[[User:Aervanath|Aervanath]] [[User talk:Aervanath|lives]] [[Special:Contributions/Aervanath|in]] '''''<font color="green">[[WP:O|the Orphanage]]</font>''''' 04:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
::{{Done}}Problem fixed by {{U|RockMFR}}--[[User:Aervanath|Aervanath]] [[User talk:Aervanath|lives]] [[Special:Contributions/Aervanath|in]] '''''<font color="green">[[WP:O|the Orphanage]]</font>''''' 04:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

== Note ==

There is discussion ongoing at [[Wikipedia_talk:Request_an_account/Administrators#It_is_time_for_the_community_to_act...]] that could probably use wider review. [[User:SQL|<span style="font-size:7pt;color: #fff;background:#900;border:2px solid #999">SQL</span>]][[User talk:SQL|<sup style="font-size: 5pt;color:#999">Query me!</sup>]] 06:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 06:43, 12 September 2008

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.

Increasing Limit

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
The user group called "account creator" was created, making this unnecessary Rjd0060 (talk) 14:29, 26 August 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..

Support

  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?--Werdan7T @ 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). SQLQuery 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]

Oppose

General Comments

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]

New user group created for accountcreators

bugzilla:13498 is resolved, and admins can now assign the user group accountcreators in Special:UserRights. I'm not sure, though, if there's a high limit or no limit on account creations for members of the group. WODUP 00:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


Usurp for Doppelganger Account

My personal initials are BMW, and my signature uses those letters. Bmw is a registered userid that last made edits in the English Wikipedia in 2004. "Regulations" say your userid can't be a company ... which apparently wasn't the case when Bmw was registered.

I would like to either a) usurp Bmw and move over to it completely, then recreate BWilkins as my doppleganger account or b) take over Bmw and use it as the doppleganger to protect myself.

Your assistance would be greatly appreciated. BMW(drive) 14:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bmw doesn't look usurpable as this is the genesis of the article and GFDL significant. User:BMW may be, because there's only talk page edits and seemingly in poor faith. WP:USURP for that. Since they're both inactive, I could create you an account "BMw" or "BmW" or something of the sort. –xeno (talk) 15:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could be opening myself up to a whole can'o'worms then...hmmm. BMW(drive) 18:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why this is necessary... If you can't usurp the account or create any of the others, neither can anyone else. The only potential concern is User:Bmw coming back as a troll after 4 years, or someone hacking the password to impersonate you. Mr.Z-man 20:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to close the mailing list

If you're subscribed, please see this post. If you're not subscribed, but active with account-creation, here's the note:

There isn't really much reason for people not to use the tool [link]. If we feel

confident that the toolserver interface is good enough, I see no reason to keep this mailing list around - it would be better to keep all the requests in one spot, especially as of late when requests via the list are not being tended to promptly.

Should people support the idea, the list can remain in use for a while (I'd propose about a month) after all references are removed from the WP:ACC page on-wiki.

Thoughts?

Rjd0060

If you aren't subscribed, feel free to leave a comment here, or send one to the list at accounts-enwiki-llists.wikimedia.org. If you e-mail us, (for organizational purposes) please use the subject line Proposal to *close* this mailing list . Thanks. - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since I'm new to account creation, and don't check any of the wiki mailing lists (and am pretty much of the opinion that all wikipedia work should be on-wiki anyway), I would support this.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 07:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Template

Someone better with templates than me, feel free to include this in the main Template:acc template, but until then, I've cobbled together a template for removing the ACC flag. It's based on the been-a-wikipedian-since template, so just insert {{subst:Acc/Remove}}, the month, day and year being the last date that the user you're removing the flag from last participated in the account creation process. Cheers. WilliamH (talk) 21:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, it substitutes the entire calculatory syntax, a bit unwieldy, but I tried. Again, those better at template syntax than me, feel free to lead the way. WilliamH (talk) 21:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ask xeno, he's excellent with templates —— RyanLupin • (talk) 21:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • My thoughts on this: I've removed the flag from a few folks and I just did it quietly. I dunno, I just think it's better just to take it off with a descriptive summary such as "not active in the WP:ACC process". Leaving them a message is just going to possibly get them riled up and bring attention to something that's pretty non-controversial. They're not losing it for abuse, just lack of use. In any case if we really do decide that we need to leave people a message, I wouldn't bother with the complicated syntax, just use a parameter "haven't participated in the ACC process in {{{1}}}" and you can pass it "60 days" "3 months", etc. –xeno (talk) 11:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your reasoning - if I were to play devil's advocate, I would argue to remove it without any comment at all is somewhat discourteous. Explaining your reasoning at the given time is probably better than someone looking at their rights log and then launching into one, so I think a very short, undramatic note will do. WilliamH (talk) 12:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really consider it discourteous - they were the ones who obtained the flag then ended up never using it. To further explain my reasoning, I haven't been removing it from people who were "once quite active" in the ACC process - they may return to do ACC work in the future. Just people who got the flag (without even meeting the typical requirements demanded at WP:RFR) and then never did any ACC work even after a month or two of having it. –xeno (talk) 16:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Odd IP address

There's currently a request on the ACC tool by someone whose e-mail seems to be valid, but whose IP is shown as <redacted>. How should this be treated, and what's causing it? Bart133 t c @ How's my driving? 03:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, it's an IPv6- someone who's just more technically savvy than us. : D I've created the account, so we should be good. L'Aquatique[talk] 03:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Haha they're not more technically savvy than us it's just the new standard internet protocol and is the successor of IPv4. They're longer which allows flexibility in allocating addresses and routing traffic. But gawd, they're ugly looking things :P —— RyanLupin • (talk) 07:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm I cant wait untill I have to remember one of those to connect to a game server >.< ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 08:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

Friends: I have thought about a change to be made to the accountcreator flag. At the moment, accountcreators can override the 6 accounts/24 hours limit. However, mw:Extension:AntiSpoof prevents users without the override the spoofing checks (override-antispoof) user right. This right is currently only assigned to the administrator user group. However, I feel that those users who are trustworthy enough to be able to create an unlimited number of accounts (ie. those with +administrator and +accountcreator) should be allowed to override the anti-spoof mechanism (Admins can already do this, as you probabally know already). What this boils down to is to allow accountcreators to override antispoof. From a technical perspective, this is very easy: just add "$wgGroupPermissions['accountcreator']['override-antispoof']=true;" to the configuration file, but I'd like to know what other people thought of this. What you must bear in mind is that this is increasing the abilities of a usergroup, and therefore theoretically should be harder to attain. This is also another stage in the breakdown of +Administrator into separate user rights, which I know some are opposed to. I'd appreciate some feedback on this, I'm not sure of the idea myself really, but I thought that I shouldn't hold my idea back, particularly if the community thinks it's a good idea. Regards, :-) Stwalkerster [ talk ] 16:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't that already requested a while ago and the devs said no? Or am I going bonkers? —— RyanLupin • (talk) 16:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I think this is a good idea. It would speed up the process and as long as it is controlled nothing can really go wrong. I don't know if this has been requested before though. -·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 16:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion on giving accountcreators override-antispoof right —— RyanLupin • (talk) 16:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Already proposed, discussed, accepted, and submitted to the sysadmins. See bugzilla:14576. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Meh, that'll teach me to look through archives first. I was on holiday at that point: probabally why I missed it :P. Thanks anyway :-) Stwalkerster [ talk ] 21:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Error on Special:Login?

Hey, I just tried to create the account Harry.y, and it kicked back the request (correctly) because it was too similar to the already-existing Harryy. This is not the problem. The problem is that it then gives me this:

Login error: The name "Harry.y" is very similar to the existing account "Harryy" (contributions • logs • user creation entry). Please choose another name, or request an administrator to create this account for you using this form. If you are "Harryy" and wish to change your username, please log in and request a name change at Wikipedia:Changing username.

. But if you follow any of the links in that message, it gives me a page that says "wiki does not exist". I expect it is because they are all going to "secure.wikimedia.org", when they should be going to "en.wikipedia.org". This is probably because I have the "Enable use of the secure server" box checked under the Preferences tab in the Account Creation Interface.

Yes, I just unchecked the box, and now it works fine. So I will leave it unchecked for now. Is this something that should be fixed? Thanks!--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 07:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 DoneProblem fixed by RockMFR--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 04:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note

There is discussion ongoing at Wikipedia_talk:Request_an_account/Administrators#It_is_time_for_the_community_to_act... that could probably use wider review. SQLQuery me! 06:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special%3ADiff%2F237883804