Wikipedia talk:Request an account/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

"Create account by plain mail" option

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)

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)

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

IPexempt requests

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Toolserver tool

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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

Ready!

(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)

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)

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)

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

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)

Account Request extension

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

(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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Requesting

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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

Backlogged

If you have an account on the toolserver tool, please log in and clear a few of the more than 200 outstanding requests ([1]); I ran into the IP account creation limit with my other account. WODUP 05:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

I think a bot creating requested accounts might not be so bad as long as it defers any questionable names (ones that would trigger HBC NameWatcherBot) to human volunteers. I don't think that it would be a coding nightmare to write, but getting someone to allow automated creations from the toolserver without captchas might be. WODUP 04:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully we won't be having this problem for too long, and we can get the extension soon. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia backlog

JeLuF closed the request citing a proclamation Jimbo made around the time of the rollbacker user group creation that there should be much voting, and Brion posted that installation would be a regular technical decision. I'm not quite sure if it's still being worked on or if we now need wider community input now or what. WODUP 05:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

AFAIK, Brion will be reviewing the code and installing it, assuming that there are no problems with the software that it will cause. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, that would be a good thing to get more people to help. I just wasn't sure since JeLuF closed the request; maybe it should be reopened. WODUP 05:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I see from the history though, that an attempt to reopen it will likely be undone by the person who closed it. WODUP 05:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Not to worry. Brion will be looking at it, as he stated in the bug report. - Rjd0060 (talk) 13:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Cannot log in

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

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)

Proposal to give the bot flag to admins' alternate accounts

Hey, folks. Just a note that there's a section over at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Bot flags for admins' alternate accounts to help WP:ACC that is very relevant to the work here. Have a look if you're interested, and comment if you've got an opinion. Thanks. WODUP 18:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• Note: The "accountcreator" usergroup was just created to allow an account to do unthrottled account creation without the anti-spoof override. This right van be given out by admins and does not contain all the other rights that bot has that account creators won't need. Mr.Z-man 00:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Yep. WODUP 01:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Does this mean a admin can give "accountcreator" usergroup to their alt. account? Tiptoety ^talk 01:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I can give it to my doppelgangers, so yes, we can. - KrakatoaKatie 07:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Accountcreator usergroup created!

Hey all, I noticed bugzilla:13498 was closed today as done. That means, we can now assign people 'accountcreator' status, as discussed above. If anyone needs it (and can show that they've been helping with the account process and running into the limit lately), I'd be more than happy to assign it, if you'd ask on my talkpage (or, via e-mail).

Should we set up a 'Requests for accountcreator' section on WP:ACC? And, we might want to set up some loose guidelines related to the group. I'd love to hear suggestions. SQL^{Query me!} 00:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Clarification, any admin may grant / remove this group, I was merely volunteering :) SQL^{Query me!} 00:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

If we create a Requests page, I think it should be on a subpage of WP:ACC so as to not clutter up the page and confuse users requesting accounts. Malinaccier (talk) 01:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Users no longer request an account onsite anymore. They may either use the toolserver tool (helper login) or, the mailing list. SQL^{Query me!} 01:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I think Malinaccier meant requests for inclusion in the accountcreator user group, but I'm not sure that there are really that many people who help, so I think a subpage might be neglected, and that just asking an admin directly or leaving a request on this talk page would be best. WODUP 01:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Should we have any requirements? I.e. membership in the mail list and/or the TS tool for now? I can't see any other situation where the flag would be appropriate... <span:: style="font-size:7pt;color: #fff;background:#900;border:2px solid #999">SQL^{Query me!} 01:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Or we can just say "to request "accountcreator" you can contact any administrator here: (list of willing admins). Just a thought, do not really care how we do it. Tiptoety ^talk 01:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking just give it to people who we know help out, but I guess that would be limited to those on the mailing list or toolserver tool, so yeah, sounds good. WODUP 01:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

So what should the requirements be? I say give it to any trusted user who asks and states they plan on/or have use(d) the tool. Tiptoety ^talk 01:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. WODUP 02:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

No, its not for everyone, unless they have a background previously of helping out on WP:ACC, they can be given the tools but if they haven't then it will not be a good idea, some may use it to test to see if they can create more that 6 account by blatantly creating multiple accounts which I belive will be abuse of the right. As I have stated here, there will be a guideline created for the admins to adhere to while giving out this right and unlike [rollback], its not of any importance to most people and admins who don't really need that right since it comes itself with the sysop rights :) ..--Cometstyles 02:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Well right, there is no use giving it to a user whom does have any experience or have shown a interest in working in that area, but overall it comes down to trust. Tiptoety ^talk 03:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Dihydrogen Monoxide/accountcreator proposal. Thoughts? dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 03:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me, though maybe we need to say other than just "has been active in account creation" it needs to read "has been active in account creation, and has not created usernames in vioation of the username policy". Huh? Tiptoety ^talk 04:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Policy vios are mentioned in the next section. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 04:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Right, that is in regards to revoking it, I am talking about granting it. It is simply to make it clear to users who are requesting it, obviously a admin is not going to give it to a user whom has violated policy :P Tiptoety ^talk 04:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[2] - How's that? dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 04:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. Tiptoety ^talk 04:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I went ahead and put it in project space sense there was a whole lot of admins wanting to know more about it, it can be found here. Tiptoety ^talk 14:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, looks good. I added a description :) SQL^{Query me!} 16:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Should we edit Wikipedia:Request an account to reflect this new change, informing users who preform account-creations how to request this new tool? Tiptoety ^talk 19:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think its needed on the main page. Perhaps SQL can add something to the TS tool to inform people. Also, sending a note to the mailing list would be a good idea. - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, yes. The mailing list would be a good idea. I will be fairly active this weekend and am more than willing to grant requests if asked. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 19:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm writing something up now and will send through the list when I'm done. Next time I catch SQL on IRC (unless he sees this here first) I'll ask him to add a note to the admin interface of the toolserver tool. - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, looks like Stwalkerster already sent a note to the list. Here it is (requires login: [3]) Thanks Stwalkerster! - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

That's OK :). Just ask me on IRC or via email, or even my talk page, (or skype if I'm on) if you want accountcreator, I'll be more than happy to give it to you. Stwalkerster [ talk ] 17:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

UBX

I was bored an made a UBX for us. Add {{User:Legoktm/AC}} on your userpage

This user has account creator rights on the English Wikipedia. (verify)

LegoK^ontribsT^alkM 05:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Welcoming

Just a quick question: is it standard practise to welcome users as soon as we create accounts for them, or wait until they make an edit[s]. RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 16:06, May 15, 2008 (UTC)

If you are using this you can have SQL's bot automatically welcome users when you create their account. That's what I do. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 00:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I use the toolserver tool, I'll set that up now. Thanks. RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 08:21, May 17, 2008 (UTC)

Odd users with the 'accountcreator' group.

Just going over the list, I've found three users, whom are not signed up for the mailing list, nor the toolserver tool (neither are their master accounts in the 2 cases of that AFAIK).

• YellowAssessmentMonkey (talk · contribs · logs) -- Alt Account of User:Blnguyen, added by User:Avraham.
• Bellatrix Kerrigan (talk · contribs · logs) -- Alt Account of User:Acalamari, added by User:Acalamari. Removed by User:Sarah
• AngelOfSadness (talk · contribs · logs) -- Added by User:Acalamari. Removed by User:Rjd0060

Should these groups remain, given that neither the master account, nor the alt account, in the cases where that is appropriate, should have any legitimate reason at all to create more than 6 accounts per day (and, in those 2 cases, could anyhow as sysops)? SQL^{Query me!} 13:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Due to technical reasons (those of which I'm not going to mention here due to BEANS), any users who aren't assisting with account creation should have the flag removed. These users, as you say, aren't on the mailing list, on the TS tool, nor have any of them ever created any accounts other than their own. Also should leave a note for Acalamari and Avraham and ask them not to give it out to anybody unless they are actually helping with ACC. Although, the two alternate accounts of admins could probably keep it, as their admin account already has the same rights as this; but if they are just using the flag as some kind of trophy or something, it isn't really necessary or appropriate. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I think if users aren't creating any accounts for people they should not have the accountcreator rights. It just makes no sense to me to give it to accounts that don't ever create accounts, even the alt accounts of admins who don't help with account creation. I could understand if their primary account had a history of account creation but in cases where they've only ever created their own account and their own alternate accounts the right should be removed because it has no purpose or use and just looks like trophy collecting. Sarah 04:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that they probably don't need it. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Get rid of them I'd say - User:Stwalkersock has accountcreator, (and rollback), but that's my alt-account, so might need them if I try account creation in a public place or something like that. I feel that accountcreator should not be given out to anyone, except those registered AND approved for the tool. I agree with Rjd0060 here - alternate accounts having rights is fine, but the person behind those accounts must be helping with ACC, whether they be an admin or not. I don't have any issues with admins themselves who arn't helping giving themselves (their admin accounts) the flag, as this would have no effect on their rights. I'm not sure if this comment is worded too well, so I hope that my message has come across correctly, and easy to understand. One last point - if nobody objects within the next day or two, I'll be WP:BOLD and remove the rights. :-) Stwalkerster [ talk ] 19:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I support removing the rights. Having people with accountcreator that don't need it is just asking for one of them to create huge numbers of sockpuppets, or something like that. (Obvious, but hard to clean up.) For instance, I haven't asked for accountcreator for User:ais523 non-admin because I'm not creating accounts at the moment (due to RL business and not being able to keep up with the mailing list), and so it would be a security risk for no benefit. --ais523 19:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I just let Acalamari know about this thread since he seems to be the only non-account creator who gave the right to their own alt account and I thought he might be have some thoughts on this issue. Anyway, besides the issues already raised here, it occurs to me that having accounts with unnecessary rights is a potential security risk. It's a bit unlikely, I know, but it is possible that an alt account could be compromised and the vandal could go on a sock creating spree, unknown to the account owner, especially if it's a rarely used alternate account and the user never/rarely checks their logs. It's unlikely but possible and another reason, IMHO, to remove it from accounts of non-account creators. Now I just realised that this is probably what Ais is referring to above about it being a potential security risk with no benefit; oh well, great minds. :p Sarah 11:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry everyone: I gave my alternate account and AngelOfSadness (as I trust her) the rights because it was new at the time, and was just trying it out. I realize now that that probably wasn't a good idea to do, so feel free to remove any unnecessary rights. My apologies for any inconvenience or confusion. Acalamari 16:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

No need to apologise, Acalamari, it's fine. I just removed the account creation right from Bellatrix Kerrigan. Thanks for coming by to comment. I didn't want to remove it without talking to you first in case there was a special reason for it as I know that some admins compartmentalise and use alt accounts for handling OTRS and unblock and account creation requests for privacy and security reasons. Cheers, Sarah 02:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for handling the removal, and for being understanding about the whole matter. :) It was funny to see the userrights change in my watchlist, however. Acalamari 02:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

A change in the tool

When a username request is visible on the tool, you have all the links to see the user's contribs, the option to ban, the option to create this user etc. Is there any way of adding another link right at the end to mark it as 'in progress' so that two user's who are patrolling the page don't try to make the same account at the same time? Another question I've mean meaing to ask - I try to access the IRC channel but it says my nickname needs to be established by the channel (or something). I do have an IRC nick 'RyanLupin,' how do I get it established? ——Ryan | t • c 10:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Have you registered the nick? /ns register RyanLupin ((password))? dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Well I reaccessed the channel a second ago and I was met with 'YOU (RyanLupin) have joined #wikipedia-en-accounts' instead so I'm assuming I'm OK now? Also can an admin please update my user rights, I've already created 5 accounts today. Thanks ——Ryan | t • c 10:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks like you have accountcreator now :) SQL^{Query me!} 15:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Welcome message

If anyone wants to use my custom welcome message, feel free. It's here. The syntax is {{subst:User:WilliamH/Welcome|YourUserName}} ~~~~ WilliamH (talk) 12:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• I noticed that all of us are rollbackers too, so add this: {{User:WilliamH/ACC and ROLL}} to your userpage if you want this:

This user has rollback and account creator rights on the English Wikipedia. (verify)

WilliamH (talk) 16:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I suggest to FastLizard4 that your welcome message be added to the tool. I liked it. O and thanks for the UBX. Rgoodermote  01:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Userpage Icon

Hi everyone, I have just created a icon to go on your userpage to show other users that you have account creator status, it follows the same prinicpals as the Admin or Rollbacker templates. Here is a link to the template.

• {{Accountcreator|one}} - if you are only a account creator (Which none of us are :P)
• {{Accountcreator|both}} - if you are an account creator and a rollbacker (Which all of us are :P )

If anyone wants anything changed with the template feel free to ask me :). All the Best, --Mifter (talk) 22:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Accountcreater usergroup seems broken

See my bug report.

Visitors to Wikipedia using your IP address have created 6 accounts in the last 24 hours, which is the maximum allowed in this time period.

Q ^{T C} 10:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

It could be that you need to wait until tomorrow for it to start ignoring the 24 hour thing. I'm not sure. giggy _(:O) 10:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Logic errors ftl, Brion ftw. Q ^{T C} 18:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Help?

Hi. If I wanted to help out around here, how would I go about it? Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 18:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

It would be wise to first have a look at this page for info on how to sign up and reply to email requests, and also this page for an intro to SQL's tool (which is where people should request an account first). If you're still interested, sign up here for the tool, and here for the mailing list (an admin will need to approve you for both, shouldn't take long). Also, if you start hitting the 6-accounts-per-IP-per-day limit, you will probably want to ask an admin for the +accountcreator user right to bypass it. A feed of requests and general discussion about the tool/process can be found in #wikipedia-en-accounts (it's probably best to ask for +acctcreator here if you find that you need it). Feel free to ask (on IRC or at my talk page) if you have any more queries. Sorry for the long screed, but I thought I'd try to answer all potential questions at once! RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 19:30, June 12, 2008 (UTC)

Discussion on giving accountcreators override-antispoof right

Due to the fact that not many admins participate in WP:ACC, and since there are not a large number of accountcreators, but enough to be helpful, I believe it would help us a lot if the accountcreator group was assigned the override-antispoof right AND that both sysops and accountcreators would receive a warning before making similar usernames, instead of the request just going through. Currently, there are two feature requests with patches concerning these changes (Bug 14576 and Bug 13426, respectively). Considering this would help out the volunteers at WP:ACC a lot (myself being a recent addition to the list), I want to see if we can reach consensus on this topic, since there has not been much discussion. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(message email)} 20:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Please note that most users here (including myself) agree that both feature requests should be implemented, and not just one of them. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(message email)} 23:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Bug 13426 has now been resolved with r36760 so now we are waiting on the change to the shell (as there is consensus). Alexfusco⁵ 21:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

We are also waiting on Bug 14576, which will give accountcreators the ability to override the AntiSpoof. Furthermore, I would like to draw your attention to Bug 12232, which will allow sysops, etc. to see if there is more than one similar username. There is a patch for this, and it is awaiting review. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(message email)} 23:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Bug 14576 is the change to the shell I was talking about. As for bug 12232, it shouldn't cause that much of a problem (we've gone without it so far without a problem). Alexfusco⁵ 14:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

• This seems to have consensus - has a bug been filed on the basis of the discussion below? —Giggy 06:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

It already has been filed (Bug 14576). RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 16:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• What are we still waiting on?--Finalnight (talk) 00:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• Basically, just accountcreators to get the override-antispoof right, which only takes a couple of seconds, unless i am missing something, which I might be (you add "$wgGroupPermissions['accountcreator']['override-antispoof'] = true;" and then save). — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(message email)} 01:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• Was this discussion ever publicized anywhere? –xeno (talk) 14:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Support

• I support the implementation of both of these features, they will be infinitely helpful to all ACC volunteers, as admins will no longer need 'sock' accounts to check similarity, and accountcreators will be able to handle all requests. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 21:43, June 19, 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Support This measure would help cut down on the backlog that always seems to exist in the "admin needed" section- which if course would then need to be changed to "account creator needed"! L'Aqùatique[review] 22:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
• Strong support Would make the job a lot easier. There's always such a huge backlog of requests in need of an administrators' attention. There's so few sysops that volunteer with this project anyway ——Ryan | t • c 23:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support sounds unlikely to create too many problems. - Icewedge (talk) 14:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support No problems at all if bug 13426 is solved Alexfusco⁵ 14:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
• I would find this helpful. giggy _(:O) 14:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support, this would be helpful --Chris 11:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Support, I just wrote about this in my RfA review and sure enough, my requests are answered, nice!--Finalnight (talk) 06:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

1. I count 10 supports here, but only 7 votes on bugzilla.--Finalnight (talk) 07:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Support. Very useful idea, lets admins get on with more important tasks! The Helpful One ^(Review) 19:26, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
• Sounds good, but, only if both bugs are implemented. SQL^{Query me!} 19:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support: All or nothing...why not? - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support I would recommend bringing this to WP:VPR Legosock ^(talk) 05:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
• Strong conditional support: Both bugs must be resolved, else oppose - I would support allowing accountcreators to override antispoof like admins, but only if it requests confirmation. In short, I would only support this if both bugs were fixed/resolved, else would oppose. --FastLizard4 (Talk•Index•Sign) 07:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, I think most of us agree that both bugs need to be handled or else it's a bust. L'Aqùatique[review] 07:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
• Strong conditional support – as others mention, it is critical that both notification of override and override for account-creators be enabled simultaneously. Aside from that, both changes are very good ideas. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 20:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support Sounds good if the bugs get resolved. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 22:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support insider info :) Prodego ^talk 14:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Isn't that a little unethical, Ms. Stewart? >:P L'Aqùatique[review] 23:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• Strong support: It's always annoyed me...... Dendodge .. Talk^Contribs 14:44, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support Would make life easier while making accounts. FunPika 22:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
• Strong conditional support If both bugs are implemented (Override AntiSpoof and Notification when doing so) otherwise oppose. --Mifter (talk) 03:03, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
• Strong support Sounds like a good idea and it will make it easier from the looks of it. --♣ẼгíćЏ89♣ (talk) 09:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support Would be very helpful. Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 02:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
• Super Support - Would be very helpful and avoid ugly backlogs of multiple deffered users - many users comment on the speedy turn around, so why not make it for every user ;) BG7even 13:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
• Conditional support I believe this tool should be available only to the ACC-tool admins, given that they work at ACC more often than others. However, this may not be possible to implement, so if this becomes active, admins need to be more cautious in who they grant the tool too. PeterSymonds (talk) 14:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
• Strong support Unconditionally. I am an account creator, and frequently notice the admin attention backlog. If we were to have such a helpful thing as this, we wouldn't need to have such a queue with a constant backlog. Yamakiri ^T_C § 07-24-2008 • 07:36:16
• Support Atomican ^{[ T | C | WC+ ]} 22:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support - the CAPTCHA is really annoying. Sceptre ^(talk) 02:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

  Will this even affect the CAPTCHA? FunPika 14:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

• Oppose: I do foresee a problem. Admins have been using accounts with account creator to create accounts, so that they can see if an account request triggers anti-spoof. If account creators can also override anti-spoof then you are back to being limited, since you have to first try creating account with an account without account creator rights, to see if anti-spoof is triggered. Also, having spoken with a dev about it, I do not expect those feature requests to be fulfilled before the confirmaccount extention is enabled, fixing all these problems. Prodego ^talk 05:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
  • That's where bug 13426 comes in: it will present admins (and account creators if enabled) with a confirmation screen if the account triggers anti-spoof, instead of automatically going ahead and creating the account. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 06:18, June 23, 2008 (UTC)
  • Also, even if ConfirmAccount is enabled, we'd still like some sort of notification when bypassing antispoof. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Based on discussion with the devs, those bugs are not likely to be fixed. So, unless they are... Prodego ^talk 23:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I really do not get it. Both feature requests have valid patches, and both diffs seem to be supported by consensus. Considering the fact that it takes literally seconds to commit the requests, why would the devs hold back. At least make some comments as to why they wouldn't. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(message email)} 00:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Tim Starling said it wouldn't. However, something else is coming now that should resolve the issue, so now I support. :) Prodego ^talk 14:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
        • Considering we already have the sysop warning bug committed, we are already 3/4 of the way there. Now we just need one more thing and we should be set, that is completely putting aside the whole ConfirmAccount thing. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(message email)} 15:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
• Strong oppose - I'm quite concerned about extending the anti-spoof override right to account creators, especially with the present threshold that the flag is being granted. My concern is that, while the anti-spoof detector catches most of the matches, there are other similar usernames that won't get picked up. This is especially salient in the case of names that are similar to active administrators. Also, as far as I could tell from a search of the archives, this discussion wasn't publicized at WP:AN, so I'm not sure that consensus has been reached. It seems that rather than increasing the power of the ACC flag (and its potential for misuse, intentional or otherwise) it would make more sense to get more admins involved in the ACC process. I've also talked to SQL about getting some kind of "backlog warning system" to poke admins into clearing the backlog when it exists. –xeno (talk) 14:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
• I don't think this is needed. Stifle (talk) 14:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Sysops

I just tried to create an account, and got the message that it's too similar to an existing username. It told me to request it from the tool on the toolserver. The sysop flag means I am not restricted from creating accounts that have usernames too similar to existing ones. However, it appears that I must go through this ACC site in order to do so. Why is this? Why can't administrators create usernames similar to existing ones from this site without going through the toolserver? In addition, it seems to me as if anyone trying to sign up to use the toolserver tool must be approved by the tool's administrators. Why is this? Why can't this site's administrators automatically be approved, as the ability to create such usernames is already part of the sysop flag? seresin ( ¡? ) 21:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Its a new feature(see here), check the Ignore spoofing checks check box above the create account button. You should then be able to create the account --Chris 03:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for that. But my question about being approved for the toolserver tool still still stands. seresin ( ¡? ) 03:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The only way to confirm who you are on wiki when creating an account on the toolserver would be to check your password agaist the password in the database. To do this the tool would have to ask you for your on wiki password which is against the rules (8. Tools and scripts must not ask users to authenticate using account details from a Wikimedia wiki.) As a way around this all users must first be confirmed by a tool admin before they can use the tool. This also stop vandals from coming in and making a mess of the tool --Chris 03:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I was unaware of such a restriction; that makes sense then. On the create an account screen, it asks for the Wikipedia username. Do the tool admins then confirm that the owner of the enwiki username is the same as the person who tried to open the account there using the Wikipedia username? seresin ( ¡? ) 04:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we confirm it was them on their talk page --Chris 04:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I used to do it via WP: e-mail to the user, when I did it. Don't do it much anymore tho. SQL^{Query me!} 08:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Convert Mailing List to OTRS format

Maybe it is just me, but i find the mailing list format hard to work with. Whenever I answer a request, I worry that someone else answered it, and just didn't CC the list. Would it be possible to have the list converted to an OTRS queue, and then give us OTRS access for that queue? Geoff Plourde (talk) 22:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

It's possible, yes, although it is extremely (really, extremely) unlikely. There already is an unblock (an en.wiki unblock) queue, as sometimes people e-mail the wrong address (omitting the 'lists.' part). Doing this would be an unnecessary step. It would create a lot of work for the OTRS admins, and the end result would be very little (if any) benefit. - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

But what if we all got permissions to use it? Then it wouldn't add any strain to the OTRS admins, and I definitely see the benefit. L'Aqùatique[review] 09:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Very crude, yet helpful.

I'm still in the process of working on this, but, I've got an extremely crude tool up, for detecting username conflicts.

http://toolserver.org/~sql/spoof.php?user=USERNAME

The URL is subject to change, and, we'll probably be working this into the Toolserver Tool, to auto-sort requests, but, I thought I'd share it while it was fresh. SQL^{Query me!} 08:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Integrated into the tool. Now it auto-files requests as needing an admin immediately, if they do. SQL^{Query me!} 06:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

What will they think of next? - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:02, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Hrm, cool - but what if the request can be easily dropped as too similar? If this is a low percentage, then I suppose it's a good way to save the time of our non-admin acc'ers. –xeno (talk) 15:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

For the Admins on the tool

I pieced together a template that you can use on the talkpages of users requesting access to the tool. Thought it might make things a little easier rather than typing out similar messages each time someone joins. {{subst:ACC-confirm}}. Feel free to change it to whatever you want, regards ——RyanLupin • (talk) 21:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I also created the templates {{ACC-access}} and {{ACC-decline}} feel free to use and/or modify them. But, note that these templates should be used by tool administrators only to avoid confusion. Mww113 (Talk) (Review me!) (Sign!) 16:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I took all of these and created a mega template ({{acc}}), so you can just type {{subst:acc|confirm}}, {{subst:acc|grant}}, {{subst:acc|deny}}, if you like. acc must be small case. –xeno (talk) 17:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Xeno, I tested your new template on Xp54321 but had to edit the code slightly to remove the title otherwise when you use {{subst:acc|confirm}} and then either the grant or decline template, it'll try to insert ==[[WP:Request an account|ACC Tool]]== again. If there's a way of changing it so it'll only post the title on the initial message then that'll be great otherwise we'll have to do that manually. I've managed to edit it myself :) ——RyanLupin • (talk) 22:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that change makes sense. cheers, –xeno (talk) 23:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

accountcreator status

I was curious about how long it generally takes to get added to the Accountcreator list. Anybody know? RandorXeus (talk) 05:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I would give it to you but I'm not sure that I understand why you need it. You only seem to have created three accounts and all were today so you wouldn't have hit the throttle yet, right? Why do you feel you need it? Sarah 05:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Where did you ask for it at? SQL^{Query me!} 05:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't need it, and I didn't know thatwhere I needed to ask for it. I was actually just curious. Thank you for your answers. RandorXeus (talk) 07:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I was hoping that an administrator might bestow on me the accountcreator status. I've already created 6 accounts, and so I cannot create any more even though there are open accounts that need to be created. Thanks. RandorXeus (talk) 20:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The correct place for such a request is WP:PERM. - Icewedge (talk) 23:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Remove inactive members of the tool?

Does anyone else think we should purge the tool of members who have requested access but have never once logged in? Also to then remove the account creator right from all users who have evidently requested it as a trophy and never actually create accounts? ——RyanLupin • (talk) 10:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I think PeterSymonds and Ryan Poss were looking at doing a cleanup of users who have account creator status but don't seem to use it any more. As for cleaning up access to the ACC tool, I think it's a good idea to review it periodically but I'm not sure if anything's in hand at present. Gazimoff 10:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I know of a few members on the list who can't actually create accounts because they're IP is restricted ——RyanLupin • (talk) 10:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible for SQL (or whomever) to compile a list of users last log-in dates? - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Aye, it is possible for me, Cobi, or OverlordQ to do so, poke one of us if I don't get around to it soon. It's on my list :) SQL^{Query me!} 04:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Sent to the mailing list. SQL^{Query me!} 17:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• I've just done some trimming of the userright based on a survey of users with the right that I did on July 17. only 1 of the 6 users I identified as inactive in the ACC process at the time had actually created accounts in between then and now. no prejudice to regranting if the other 5 users start hitting the throttle in the future. –xeno (talk) 18:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Secure server

The tool as it is doesn't allow use of the secure server (that is, https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Main_page ). Since I always log in my primary account via the secure server (I'm on a WEP network regularly), this requires me to also log my sock account in on the regular server. Now, since I'm not an admin, this is more of an inconvenience than a problem, but if I was then either I'd have to have a privileged sock (not happening) or I'd have to log in insecurely over my insecure network with a privileged account (also not a good idea). The same problems apply to accountcreator rights. The tool should have a preference to use the secure server instead of the standard one. --Thinboy00 @748, i.e. 16:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

 Done (in SVN at least) Support for secure server added in r1530. Still not live however currently. FunPika 01:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

---

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)

   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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
7. Support Anyone else find this ironic?--Werdan7^{T @} 01:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
8. Support I keep running into this! - Milk's Favorite Cookie 01:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
11. Support I think its a good idea Alexfusco⁵ 14:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
12. Support both increasing the limit and the "account creators" user group. Think outside the box 14:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

• Not needed with the accountcreator permission. Stifle (talk) 14:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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