Wikipedia talk:Request an account/Archive 1

File:Shaikh irfan

shaikh irfan

Email

Is this madness, or am I missing something? By asking users to post an email address, you are promoting spam. On talk pages and help desks we instruct users to never post an email address. Savvy users will create a throw-away address, but here we don't advise others to do so. This whole CAPTCHA thing seems like an emergency response that needs to be reconsidered with more community input. --KSmrq^T 15:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe a separate mailing list would be a better idea. John Reaves (talk) 18:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I was just going to post the same thing. I don't really have a problem with image verification, but asking people to post plaintext email addresses here is just asking for trouble. Could the "email this user" function not be somehow incorporated into this process so the folks that need to know the potential editors addy will get it but it won't be publicly posted here - for example a prospective editor would simply post a username request and once they have a valid one (since I see there are quite a few with usernames already taken) then an admin can reply asking them to contact them through the "email this user" function with their email address and they will then mail them their password. I think this definitely needs to be better thought out. SFC9394 20:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

It's only possible to e-mail someone with the e-mail this user function if you already have an account with a valid e-mail address, so it won't work for this page. E-mailing a mailing list would probably work well. It could be set up like the oversight mailing list, so that anyone can send e-mails to it but only trusted users can read it. Another option might be to ask people to put the e-mail address in HTML comments, reducing its visibility, and perhaps regularly delete and recreate the page in order to clear out old e-mail addresses that have been used. Tra (Talk) 22:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Anyone specifically targeting this page would be able to glean e-mail addresses from history. However, to just view the page with a normal spam targeter would only get addresses that haven't yet been processed. I can also get this page added to the robots.txt file if necessary. Ral315 » 23:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

So we expect scum-of-the-Earth spammers to respect the robots.txt directions? I quote from the linked article:

The protocol, however, is purely advisory. It relies on the cooperation of the web robot, so that marking an area of a site out of bounds with robots.txt does not guarantee privacy.

As for what they can glean, so far as I can tell determined spammers could automate the harvesting of everything, and use a zombie computer farm (a botnet) to help do it. --KSmrq^T 08:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I tried getting a mailing list; the developers rejected my request. The e-mail addresses are removed immediately upon the creation of an account, so the spamming likelihood is relatively low. We can't ask these users to add their e-mail in HTML comments, though, because many don't know what they're doing. Hell, half of them replace other people's requests with their own (requiring a diff-by-diff restoration). I'm willing to consider other alternatives if there are any, but we need to make it easier for end-users, not harder. Ral315 » 23:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

There's still the option of periodically deleting the whole page when the requests have been dealt with, then recreating it with the basic instructions. That way, although they are visible for a short period of time, e-mails and IP addresses are taken completely out of sight eventually, which is good for privacy reasons. Tra (Talk) 23:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

+1 for that proposal. — Edward Z. Yang^(Talk) 00:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Once spammers learn they can keep an eye on one page to get a never-ending supply of valid email addresses, these lame rationalizations will be exposed bahl blah balh whatever for the nonsense they are. Please, discuss this whole CAPTCHA idea with the larger community. This page is too tiny and hidden a forum for such an important design dialog. --KSmrq^T 01:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Tell that to Bugzilla. — Edward Z. Yang^(Talk) 02:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Why not just have requests sent to the admin mailing list? John Reaves (talk) 17:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

There's an admin mailing list? Titoxd^(?!?) 23:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Er, I think I confused it the IRC channel, which, in this case, wouldn't help since it requires permission and new users most likely don't use IRC. Oooops...John Reaves (talk) 23:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I meant to say unblock-en-l, not "the admin mailing list". John Reaves 12:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Potential for Abuse

And I don't even mean malicious abuse. I mean well-meaning folks who haven't the slightest that Wikipedia can be edited by anyone and think you have to go through some sort of screening process in order to get an account. Given the amount of traffic this page has received since its inception, I highly doubt that every person who requested an account was unable to solve the captcha (and much less use a text-only browser.) — Edward Z. Yang^(Talk) 04:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The instructions do say that the page should be used if the captcha can't be solved, so someone who posts here incorrectly will only create a bit more work, and this should not cause too many problems. Also, this page could perhaps also be used for allowing people to register a username that would normally not be permitted for being too similar to another username. Tra (Talk) 17:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Possible changes

It would seem possible to make this list something automatically generated by the account creation procedure and display it on a '/Special:' page visible only to admins. Just capture the userid, password, and e-mail they use to try to create the account and write them out to the page if they click a 'I cannot resolve this image' button. That would require dev work, but remove all the problems of users over-writing other requests, e-mail addresses being displayed, et cetera.

Also, hasn't anyone developed a sound-based equivalent to CAPTCHA? As in, click a button to play a sound file and then type in the word spoken. That would enable most blocked users to create their own accounts. Some users/browsers would still require an account to be created for them, but it should be a tiny percentage. --CBD 13:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

If a sound-based equivalent was developed, it would probably end up generating OGG files, which would require plugins to use and it would not be very user-friendly. Tra (Talk) 17:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Since they're small enough, we could serve raw WAV files. — Edward Z. Yang^(Talk) 21:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Evaluation - waste of time?

I have just done my bit for this function. Seems to me that many new users (as noted above) are deleting other requests when they add their own. With that level of competence, I wonder have they even tried to create their own account (or how they are going to go editing). I also notice that for the accounts created - only one (Scepterstein Records (talk · contribs)has any contributions - is this a waste of time? --Golden Wattle ^talk 01:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd argue that there are accounts who don't edit immediately (I didn't edit for a while after creating my account); also, if even one editor becomes a constructive member of the Wikipedia community, I consider that a success. Ral315 » 19:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I scroll back through the diffs since the last administrator marked it as completed-to-that-point. Daniel Bryant 08:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

That's what I do as well. Ral315 » 07:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you need to be an admin to handle requests?

All the documentation here talks about how admins can handle requests and create accounts. However, I, a normal user, have managed to follow the instructions mentioned successfully to assist in the creation of a few accounts through this page. So, is it a mistake or is there something I've missed? Tra (Talk) 00:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

You don't; however, I've envisioned the page as aimed at mostly admins and experienced users, since it can involve e-mailing users, and most importantly, because users are only limited to 6 account creations per IP per day, and I've put in a bugzilla request to allow admins to create unlimited accounts. Ral315 » 00:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Usernames too similar to existing accounts

Perhaps this page could be expanded to allow users to register accounts that would normally be prevented for being too similar to an existing account, since it is quite likely that the account that it clashes with is dormant/unused so there shouldn't be too much of a problem in registering the name in most cases. This could probably be done by linking to this page from the error message given by MediaWiki:antispoof-name-conflict. Tra (Talk) 22:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I have no personal objection for doing so. Ral315 » 23:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

In that case, maybe MediaWiki:antispoof-name-conflict could be changed to say something like The name "$1" is very similar to the existing account "$2". To prevent abuse, please [[Wikipedia:Request an account|request an administrator]] to create this account for you. Tra (Talk) 00:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd prefer something more along the lines of The name "$1" is very similar to the existing account "$2". Please choose another nickname, or [[Wikipedia:Request an account|request an administrator]] to create this account for you.

Yes, I think that sounds better. Tra (Talk) 00:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

This has been done, seeing no objection. Administrators will have to handle these, obviously, and they should be declined when they're close to quite established users. Ral315 » 02:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I think there should be a seperate page for handling those, and requests here which are similar should be moved to there. Requests there should be required to, in addition to the requested account name, contain the name of the existing account to allow admins to check if it's humanly close to the name of an acitve user. Od Mishehu 09:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

What might work would be to have two sets of instructions and preloads for each type of request, then get everyone to add their request to one page making it easy to deal with. The preload for accounts that are similar to other accounts would look different, so they would be easy to distinguish. Tra (Talk) 17:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems that the new bot, User:AccReqBot, has removed a bunch of requests that were "too close" to an existing user name. A lot of those were valid requests, where the existing user name was old and inactive. They should be reinstated, I think. jwillbur^talk 20:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I've put them back and notified ST47 (talk · contribs). Tra (Talk) 20:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Usurpation

Has anyone come across a request for an account that could be usurped? We should create a procedure for allowing user to request usurpation, perhaps creating username (temporary) and directing them to WP:CHU/U. John Reaves (talk) 09:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Would probably just confuse newcomers, in my opinion. If they want to have their usernames renamed, then we should let them find CHU?U themselves/demonstrate that they will be solid contributors, rather than busying the beaurecrats with username usurpations that will never be used.

Because usurps take 30 days, sending every newcomer to CHU/U when 90% of them never make another edit would only be a waste of time, in my opinion. Daniel Bryant 11:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Good point. John Reaves (talk) 11:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Request an account/top

Is anyone opposed to moving the instructions and whatnot to Wikipedia:Request an account/top and transcluding it so the page isn't as frightening to new users in edit mode? John Reaves (talk) 22:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

That's quite a good idea. Another benefit of this is that the page history of updates to the instructions is preserved, which will increase compliance with the GFDL, since Wikipedia:Request an account is deleted periodically. Tra (Talk) 23:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Re-arrangement of page

I've re-arranged the page so that requesters now add their request using &section=new, which should hopefully reduce the number of users who overwrite each other's requests. Tra (Talk) 01:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

A great idea. I award you a cookie, or something. Ral315 » 20:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Template, if anyone else wants to use it

See Wikipedia:Request an account/T. Provides some very handy links to make things easier. Added benefit is it doesn't display emails on page (and instead adds it to the autofill link to create the account - thanks VoA for that one!). Could maybe be used to format requests, when a person is over their 6-limit quota and can't create the account straight away? Cheers, Daniel Bryant 05:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

PS: any news about the limit removal? Daniel Bryant 08:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

When we get a scap, we'll be fine; until then, we're waiting. However, I found out that my IP is dynamic, so I should be able to get a lot of requests taken care of during the week. Ral315 » 09:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

It might be a few days before I can do this again- please, someone bug brion to scap :) Ral315 » 21:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Spam

Moved from WP:ACC

Hello, I put my new spamless for-six-months email address on this page and within days it got spam. I'm rather unhappy about this. Please warn users signing up here not to put their email address in plaintext. E.g, put the following text under item 2:

DO NOT enter it in plain form (e.g. "foo@bar.com"); it WILL be picked up by spammers. Instead enter something like "foo_removeThis_@bar.com" or "foo (a t) bar d o t com".

Thank you.

I've added a note to the yellow box recommending that people use disposable e-mail addresses. Tra (Talk) 18:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Dunno if that's doable (i.e. if people will understand the directions), but we could ask them to "cut" their e-mail address in 2 parts username and domain, for example foo@bar.com would be email1=foo|email2=bar.com. Hopefully that would make things harder for spambots. -- lucasbfr ^talk 11:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Bot Desperately Needed

We really need a bot to tend this page and add completed requests to the archive. This is becoming quite a disaster. I'm posting over on Wikipedia:Bot requests, but I'd encourage anyone with bot experience to consider coding up a solution. Thanks! alphachimp 18:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

That's probably easier said than done. For one thing, since this page is aimed at new users, a lot of them do not fill out the form correctly, which can confuse the bot. Also, when the bot completes requests, it would be limited to 6 accounts per IP address, which would slow it down. There's also the problem of dealing with all of the captchas. I think what's mainly needed is just more people handling requests. Tra (Talk) 18:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to simplify the form a little. Honestly, I don't think it'd be too hard. The bot just has to check whether the account exists. If it exists when the request is posted, the request will be marked as bad. If it exists anytime after 5 minutes after the request and is shown as created by another user, it'd move the request to the archive. This is mostly a solution to ease the archiving process. alphachimp 19:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Please see and comment at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/AccReqBot. --kingboyk 12:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Updated Preload Text

I've updated the preload text to make it a lot easier for admins/users to create accounts. Check out Wikipedia:Request an account/preload. I'd be interested in your comments about the new formatting. I think it will improve our workflow quite a bit. alphachimp 23:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

This should make it much easier to create accounts, and save a lot of copy and pasting. You could even put &wpPassword=123&wpRetype=123 into the URL, since the passwords entered in the form will not work if you click 'by e-mail'. Fingers crossed that the requesters manage to fill out the form correctly, however. Tra (Talk) 23:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

That's my big concern, and why I put the example in the commented area. We do have to expect a certain amount of errors, but it might help. Could you add the 123 password bit? I'm not quite sure where to put it. alphachimp 23:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I've put it in. Now, as long as people fill in the form correctly (which I hope they do), all that needs to be done is fill in the captcha. Tra (Talk) 23:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I think we need to change the template name from Template:LEAVE THIS TEXT UNCHANGED, as it might be interpretted as "leave this line unchanged". The last two users completely missed changing that line of text. alphachimp 23:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

How about changing the template so it can be used in the form:

{{account request

|username =
|e-mail address =

}}

This might be easier to fill in maybe. Tra (Talk) 23:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

That might help out a lot. I just changed it to Template:Enter username and email on the right, but feel free to move it at your leisure. alphachimp 23:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's see if your version works for the next few people who sign up and if it doesn't, maybe try my idea. Tra (Talk) 00:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I think we should switch to the format suggested above by Tra. There have been a good number of malformed requests, I think it is confusing to people who have never seen wikisyntax before. Tra's suggestion might make it a little bit easier for them. jwillbur^talk 05:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

We could perhaps try it for some time. Although there will probably always be malformed requests, the important thing is to try to make it so that there are as few malformed requests as possible. Tra (Talk) 12:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, let's do it. alphachimp 14:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

It would probably confuse the bot, though. I've contacted ST47 to see what he thinks. Tra (Talk) 14:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, the template's all ready. Once the bot has been sorted out, the new system can be implemented by reverting to this version or something similar of the preload. Tra (Talk) 15:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll make the necessary changes. ST47Talk 18:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. /preload converted and bot running. ST47Talk 18:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Am I missing something?

Hi, I've recently posted a request for an account and it appears to have been created. The username requested was "Ab.er.rant". I have received an email requesting that I confirm the account registration by clicking on the link (which I did). The link does not auto-login so I stumped as to what the password for my account is (and no, the password wasn't mentioned in the email. Am I supposed to wait for a second email? Thanks. 58.71.154.194 06:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I might have done that one wrong, you should receive another e-mail with a temporary password shortly. John Reaves (talk) 07:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Got it! Thanks! Ab.er.rant 08:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

on pneumatic conveying

i m not able to find topic on pneumatic coneying

That might be quite a specific topic. You could try asking for the information you're looking for at the Reference desk. Tra (Talk) 23:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Bot welcoming

Would anybody be opposed to the bot adding a welcome template to the user talk pages of the accounts we create? I've contacted ST47 who has said it's possible, there just needs to be consensus first. John Reaves (talk) 17:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't really see a problem with it, but there does seem to be consensus against mass-bot welcoming over on Wikipedia:Bot requests. I don't really think this falls into the same category, but it's possible that someone could make a slippery slope argument against it. Anyway, I'd support such a proposal. alphachimp 18:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Already exists

How are users supposed to ever find out that the name they selected already exists and that they need to select a new one when the bot removes the request with no notifacation? John Reaves (talk) 21:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The bot e-mails the requester to tell them that the account has already been taken. Tra (Talk) 21:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah. John Reaves (talk) 21:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Bot may be down for some time...

I will be on vacation this weekend and will not have access to a linux machine. That means that several bots will be down, including this one. If anyone has a computer running linux, I can provide them with a stand-alone binary that can run until I return - contact me on my talk page and I can email it to you. ST47Talk 14:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Betacommend has it on his toolserv account for the weekend. ST47Talk 21:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

No e-mail

I added a note about e-mail being required in the preload. I say we simply refuse requests without e-mails or at least only wait a few days before removing them. John Reaves (talk) 17:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Introduction - minor rewording?

Howdy. Was thinking the first instruction point could be better worded as "1. Read the details below and then click this link." as some people may just click the link then read the instructions after submitting the request, but wanted to see what others thought rather than changing it myself.

The last point "4. ... too similar to another account..." could probably be reworded too (seems a little awkward, but I can't come up with a better wording myself) and perhaps note that if the username is too close to an active account name it will be rejected? Zarius 08:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Bot email issues

I can run this bot on the toolserver, but due to weird things, I cannot send email. I won't have access to this computer for about a week starting this coming friday, should I change it to not remove accounts that already exist, since we can't email them? ST47Talk 12:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, you would probably need to comment that bit out temporarily whilst e-mail's down, so that the requests are still visible for people to contact them. Tra (Talk) 22:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Account creation weirdness

Did any administrators here create the account Spray&Pray (talk · contribs · account creation)? The requester received the e-mail with the password, but cannot log in. I checked into it and it seems the account was created in the last two days (it appears in "listusers" now), but I cannot find the creation log. jwillbur^talk 00:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

If it's not appearing in the log and the requester can't login, perhaps it's a database issue, where the account was not created properly by MediaWiki? Tra (Talk) 15:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, just seen WP:VPT. To quote Tim Starling:

“ We sometimes get unlogged operations (account creation, page protection, blocks, etc.) due to random deadlocks in an Apache signal handler. A deadlock causes the last transaction to be rolled back, and logging is often done in a separate transaction to the main operation to reduce lock contention. This will hopefully be fixed when we upgrade to Apache 2. -- Tim Starling 09:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC) ”

Tra (Talk) 16:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it seems to have been a database issue, Tim has cleared it up. Can an admin please re-create the Spray&Pray and Greek0 accounts? They are still listed under "Open requests" jwillbur^talk 17:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

New template

Do you think it would be a good idea to use templates like {{not done}} for requests that have no e-mail or are requesting an account that already exists. This might reduce confusion and help clarify to the requester that their request cannot be carried out, since at the moment, they might mistake seeing 'similar to...' comments as rejecting the request. Tra (Talk) 22:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

There's an idea being suggested for a new template to use on this page at User talk:Tra#Declining WP:ACC requests. What does everyone think? Tra (Talk) 18:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's the new template: {{ACC}}. Tra (Talk) 22:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I was going to suggest something similar to {{RFPP}} too, but I guess I forgot. Great job. John Reaves (talk) 22:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that's so helpful! I added an {{ACC}} option so that requests can be closed off before the bot gets to them, and now the backlog's down to 0. Now all we need is something to do with denied requests (at the moment they just sit there forever, as far as I can tell). --ais523 08:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Since I added "requests without e-mails will be rejected", I've been deleting requests without e-mails after a few days. John Reaves (talk) 08:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

What about deleting anything tagged with {{ACC}} (other than the 's' reason) after a few days (say 3)? (That could be implemented by bot quite easily.) --ais523 09:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. And thank you Tra for the very helpful template! jwillbur^talk 18:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Those tagged with ACC with anything other than s - should they simply be removed after 3 days, or archived somewhere? ST47Talk 21:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

No, they'll just need to be removed, so that people's e-mail and IP addresses are not available to spammers. Tra (Talk) 11:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Similar to accounts created recently, but with no edits

What would be the best way to handle these? There is a chance that someone might wait a while before they make their first edit, so accounts that are similar to other accounts created in say, the last few days shouldn't really be created. But where would be the best place to draw the line? a week? two weeks? a month? Tra (Talk) 16:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

This is confusing me too. It would seem unlikely for both accounts to become active (most WP:ACC applicants don't edit, and many only make a few edits), but I suppose that risk exists. I'm not sure where the cutoff should be. --ais523 08:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I've had a look, and WP:CHU/U currently has a cut-off point of around six months, but since the worst that can happen over here is that someone finds they are editing alongside another user with a similar name, I think that six months is far too long.

I've also had a look at the contributions of 50 users who signed up a month ago. Of these, 19 made at least 1 edit and from those 19, 16 made their first edit on the same day they signed up. The other 3 made their first edits 2, 4 and 11 days after they signed up. I think therefore, a cut-off point of 1 week would work well, as it should prevent most of the potential conflicts. Tra (Talk) 16:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

And the opposite case has come up now: ' Similar to Thesi (talk · contribs · account creation) with 4 edits in December 2005 - April 2007 but should be created by an administrator shortly.'. It's a pretty simple 'create' in this case because there would be hardly any chance of confusion even if they were both active (Thesi / TheSL); but what would happen if the usernames were more similar, and a similar situation came up (the existing user edits very infrequently but has edited recently compared to their average length of time between edits, and is editing constructively)? --ais523 16:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

It would depend mostly on whether or not someone is actually going to confuse the names. If the names are similar enough to be confused (e.g. if someone had requested "TheSi" then it would probably be best to be on the safe side and disallow it. If, however, we know that the two editors are going to be interested in different topic areas and aren't going to get confused with each other then there shouldn't be too much of a problem. The only problem is that for most of the requests, we don't know what topic areas they plan to get involved in. Tra (Talk) 18:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Topic areas may be a bit of a red herring, because if both editors become active, one of them's likely to end up being discussed at RfA or ANI or RFC or somewhere eventually, where people from outside the topic often comment, and may end up confusing them. --ais523 15:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Page Deletions

I just deleted and restored this page, causing some unavoidable server difficulties. Please start removing the history of this page another way. Simply move this page to another page (I used Wikipedia:Request an account/Deleted1) and then delete that page. You can restore the original content from Wikipedia:Request an account as soon as you're done. alphachimp 07:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

When removing the page history, you should copy the page content, delete the page, then recreate the page using the data that was copied earlier. This is a really simple way to do it. Extranet is now E ^talk 10:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

No, because deleting page with a large history can take many minutes. It's best to have the page back up as soon as possible. -- John Reaves (talk) 08:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Chrisworld

I would like to use chrisworld since i use that name for everything but "ChrisWorld" username prevents me from doing so, sho steals names from other people, honestly, ive been using chrisworld forever. - 69.248.175.25 19:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

If you can provide an e-mail address, you can request that the account Chrisworld (talk · contribs · account creation) is created by an admin (who can get round the similar usernames restriction) by following the instructions at Wikipedia:Request an account. Please note however, that the first letter of the username will automatically be capitalised. Tra (Talk) 20:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of an inactive account?

What happens if somebody would like the username of another account who has never contributed and who hasn't supplied an email address? For instance, I would like the account name Sodo, but it has been registered without an email address and has not contributed at all. 72.223.123.144 12:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Please, create another user account first. It is more convenient than talking to an IP address. A later renaming can probably be arranged. --Tone 13:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Please DONT create another user account..The name you requested has been tagged as "Similar" which means the person who tagged it doesn't have administrative privileges and the name is available and all you have to do is wait for an Admin to create the name for you and send you the password to the given E-mail account..Have patience ..It will be done soon ..--Cometstyles 13:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Account request fillfulled but no password emailed.

I requested a account [1]. A bot removed the section with this edit, saying the request was "done".

I've checked the userlist and the account i request has indeed been created. However, i have received no email (and yes, i've checked the "junk mail" box).

Am i waiting for someone to send me the email with the password. Or did something go wrong. If so, can i get another email sent to me with the password?

Thanks, --Yu-Tian Fang 10:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that the method used to create the account requires an actual e-mail address, and not a Special:Emailuser link. That would explain why you did not receive the e-mail. Unfortunately, this means that the account is now inaccessible, so your easiest option now is to request another account instead. It might be possible to recreate the account you requested if the incorrectly made account is usurped, but that might take a while and there's no guarantee that bureaucrats would be willing to perform the rename. Tra (Talk) 11:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, i didn't realize a bot was doing the emailing. That would explain the problem then. (Makes me wonder if a bot is doing the account creating too...). I can't really be bothered trying to get it recreated. I just wanted it to redirect the userpage, which i can do anyway. --Yu-Tian Fang 11:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

No, what happens is a human clicks the 'create' link for each request, which takes them to the account creation form with most of the fields filled in. They fill in the rest of the fields and click 'By e-mail' which causes the password to be sent directly from Wikipedia to the requester's e-mail account. The account creation is then logged, and the bot monitors these logs and removes the requests whenever it can see that the account has been created. In this instance, the person didn't check that the pre filled fields were filled in correctly, which would have caused this problem. Tra (Talk) 11:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Creating an account logs me out

Hey. When I create an account, I fill in a password for the user, make sure remember me is checked, and click by e-mail. If it's able, it creates the account, but it logs me out of Wikipedia. Is there something I can do to remain logged in? WODUP 20:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Strange, that doesn't happen to me. (I leave remember me unchecked for creating other people's accounts, though; that leaves me logged in, and I can recheck it at Special:Preferences.) --ais523 10:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Well a similar thing happens to me that is I don't get logged out instantly but when I go to edit the section to tag it as created..It then kind of logs me out..Its a minor problem and nothing to bother myself about though..--Cometstyles 10:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I created one earlier today and left remember me unchecked, and it still logged me out. I don't know why. I'll try something different each time and see what happens. WODUP 22:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Please don't create accounts with abreviated Harry Potter-related names

To all users who help out at WP:ACC: Today, a request was placed for the account Ala Moody. This looks just like the user names used by an abusive vandal, and the email address - ignoreallrules@walla.com - reminds me of this abusive vandal's edit summery - WP:IAR. Please be careful about such user names, as they may be an attempt to create accounts at times when he/she isn't editing. Od Mishehu 10:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Pranavor as a user name

Please, help me to create my user name as: Pranavor. Thanks. CU --193.77.155.144 14:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Moved to WP:ACC open requests..--Cometstyles 16:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Similar to two accounts, one inactive, the other active

This seems to have happened recently; the username Da.n.n.y was requested, and the software rejected it due to similarity with Dan.ny (an inactive account). However, there's also the active (administrator, in fact) account User:Danny, which is also presumably too similar but which the software didn't flag up, so it seems that only one of the similarity matches is being flagged up by the software, and not necessarily the appropriate one. I doubt there's a workaround for this, but in the meantime, it would help to stay alert in similar requests. --ais523 09:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Username Nikkis

Hello! I'd like to create an account with the name Nikkis, because in the german Wikipedia, I've the same account. But there's already a user, who calls User:NikkiS, but this user is not activ. Can you help me? 84.131.199.103 12:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

An email address is needed so that we can send you the password. It's easiest if you use the link on the main page Wikipedia:Request an account, which gives you a form where you can enter the desired username and email address; this is a discussion ('talk') page, which is for discussing the account-creation process, not itself for creating accounts. --ais523 12:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Archives?

Hi. I requested an account name here around 14 July. I can't find it in the closed account names for the month and I never received a response. I'd like to find out some feedback from my request (if it was rejected/why) but I don't know where to begin the discussion or with whom because I can't find a version of the page older than 19 July. Any help/ideas? (Here or on my talk page). Thanks to the perpetually helpful wikicommunity. Much love. Joshua Crowgey 05:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Replied at User talk:Joshua Crowgey. Tra (Talk) 21:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Taking an unused username.

There is a username I'm after, but it has already been registered, however there is absolutely no activity on this account.

I'm wondering if it would be possible to use this username for myself, if this is not possible I would like to know wikipedia's policy on inactive accounts, and how long it takes for them to be removed.

--211.28.212.240 17:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The process for what you're describing is at WP:CHU/U. However, they will only allow unused but taken usernames to be given to people who are already established users on Wikipedia. What I would recommend is that you choose another username to sign up with, edit with that username for a few months and later on make a request there. Tra (Talk) 19:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Privacy

I've got a concern that this page invades users privacy by the fact they have to submit their IP address when they request an account. There must be a better way to do this, how about a mailing list similar to unblock-en-l where users are directed to that if they are unable to create an account? It seems quite a serious conern to me that's all. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

That and the e-mail addresses can present a bit of a problem. What's done currently is the page history is periodically deleted approximately every week or two, although there is still the chance that an attacker could constantly monitor the page and catch the information before it gets deleted. There is discussion above on this talk page about the possibility of using a mailing list, although the developers were unwilling to set one up. Tra (Talk) 21:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Unblock-en-l routinely handles account requests (for avoiding anon blocks), but on an archived mailing list your IP is saved, as well as being given to everyone on the list. Prodego ^talk 00:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

If you are worried about privacy, delete this project, and form a list serv on OTRS to handle username requests. username-en-l@wikipedia.org Miranda 17:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I asked Brion to set up such a list, and he refused. If he's willing to do so, that would work much better. Ral315 » 17:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Why'd he refuse? SQL^{(Query Me!)} 19:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Can non-admins (like me) help out?

I came across this by accident, and would like to help. The only problem is that I am not an admin. Can I help out here, or do you have to be an admin?
--FastLizard4 (Talk•Links•Sign) 23:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Never mind! I noticed some non-admins doing it, so I guess I don't need to ask this question anymore!

--FastLizard4 (Talk•Links•Sign) 23:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, generally non-admins should leave the creating of accounts to administrators (but there is no rule that says that this must be done). Administrators have the ability to create accounts no matter if the desired account name is similar to another account. I guess there is nothing wrong with nons helping out declining obvious similar requests. Sebi _[talk] 06:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Non-admins definitely can help out, and in fact are needed. Non-admins should try to create each account shown (unless it's a username policy violation, or has a bad email address, etc.), to see what's stopping the creation. If they manage it, fine; if they can't, reporting back using {{ACC|s}} or {{ACC|sa}} explaining what username the requested username is similar to, and how active the previous username is, is very helpful for admins. (Admins can't do this check themselves, because it would lead to the account being created no matter what the situation.) --ais523 16:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Project

Well I have been on this Project since around the Time it started and I still think this is a really bad idea.. mainly due to the Privacy issues and the fact that non-admins are creating accounts for others and there is no way of knowing if the same non-admins will abuse the accounts for themselves or instead of "sending the password via e-mail", they create the account and in the process diminish the chances of the person requesting the account to ever get to use it and its high-time now, seeing the names of users helping in creating the accounts are themselves "un-trustworthy", it will be advisable that from now on only admins and a couple of editors chosen by the 4 leading admins on this project (Ais523, Tra, Od Mishehu and WODUP) cause when I was here, there were many times accounts were created by *newbies* whose accounts were themselves created by other editors on the project, abuse WP:ACC and created accounts for their misuse and we don't actually know how many of these accounts created actually were used by the same user requesting it and finally the privacy policy of Wikipedia succumbs to this project since the requesters IP and e-mail are shown for everyone to see and who knows how many of these requesters had had their E-mail spammed..I believe its time that this Project was handled by the OTRS and to uphold Wikimedia's PRIVACY POLICY.....--Cometstyles 15:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

OMG, most of this is one sentence!  :) Who is abusing what now? I don't understand. Are there examples? —Wknight94 (talk) 15:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Punctuation-pedia? I suggested a long time ago (scroll up) that this were to be handled by OTRS. M.^(er) 19:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I said it further up that OTRS should be used for this. When you sign up for an account here, you reveal your IP, username and email address to everyone - it completely goes against the privacy policy. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Read the first post on this page, I believe I suggested that in February. Complain to the OTRS/listserv people. Also, setting up a hierarchy and creating bureaucracy never solves anything. -- John Reaves 15:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

It would take a pretty dedicated person to actual make use of this page for abuse. By the time an editor was established enough to even warrant abuse, the page history would be long gone. -- John Reaves 15:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

But the point is, it is open to abuse. You are right in many ways that someone would have to be dedicated, but you are revealing some very intimate details that many people would not want revealing. If this was released by a checkuser, they'd be shot. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I totally agree with Ryan, this Project is not safe and definitely discredits Wikipedia's Privacy Policy and believe me there are more people "dedicated" to destroying wikipedia than promoting it and now we have more than enough admins and if atleast 6 of them took charge of this project, this won't be happening. As mentioned by Ryan, misuse of intimate details will create a havoc and its better to put an end to this before it escalates any further and to answer Wknight94's question, No..or none that I'm aware of..since I sort of left this project when I saw the increase of the number of editors helping here whose accounts in wikipedia terms were 'new' and I'm no fan of allowing blocked vandals/socks from abusing this and its about time there was a bureaucracy setup on this Project for the betterment off all those new users who "actually" want to improve wikipedia..--Cometstyles 16:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Though I've obviously supported the off-wiki idea since the beginning. -- John Reaves 16:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

When the PRIVACY POLICY gets abused.. IGNORE ALL RULES!!.( I knew this policy will come in handy ) .......--Cometstyles 16:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Request an account/Header

Just noticed, this header template does not list October! It looks somewhat complex, so, could someone with better knowledge of templates correct it? SQL^{(Query Me!)} 09:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I've fixed it. --ais523 12:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! SQL^{(Query Me!)} 12:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Multiple requests from same IP

In the last 24+ hours, the IP 66.212.28.34 has requested six different accounts, and five have been created. If I'm reading the WhoIs data right, this resolves to an ISP that services businesses in the Los Angeles area, so the IP might be relatively static, possible shared, and I don't think it's kids on a school project. Other edits seem to show some interest in Australia-related subjects.

If I understand right, the only reason anyone would come to WP:ACC is if (a) you don't understand the instructions on the account creation page, (b) you can't read the captcha image, or (c) there's a problem creating the account. Something just seems off here. If it was someone accumulating sleeper accounts, they could just do it themselves, so I don't see the benefit of coming here, but still, just seems weird. Could it be that, since we created them here, the person creating the accounts thinks it might be harder to track all the other accounts? Is this an open proxy of some kind?

Do we keep fulfilling the requests, or should we look into this a little further? --barneca (talk) 15:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

There's a 6-account-per-IP-per-day limit. It may be that someone accumulating sleepers has hit the limit and is looking for more via WP:ACC. However, in that case it would likely be a bad decision from that person's point of view, because the WP:ACC data could just be fished up from deleted history to show a connection between the accounts if needed. --ais523 15:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Forgot I posted here yesterday. Thanks, ais523, that would explain things; although I hope there's an innocent explanation, I've gone ahead and put the seven talk pages on my watchlist, so if vandalism warnings pop up on one I'll remember what the other accounts were. Not to spill the WP:BEANS, but I can now think of at least one reason why a sock farmer might want to use WP:ACC; I wonder if we should consider an official, or unofficial, limit to the number of new accounts we'll create for one IP? Eh, probably an isolated case, anyway. --barneca (talk) 14:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I decided to visit the IP via HTTP... http://66.212.28.34/... It's some sort of file hosting service? SQL^{(Query Me!)} 19:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Barneca, if you're looking for a more innocent explanation than accumulation of sleepers, it is possible that it is a teacher. On unblock-en-i I have dealt with several teachers who were at schools with anon blocked/account creation disabled IP addresses. They were preparing to do lessons using Wikipedia as a teaching method and they wanted to know if they could create accounts for their students who don't have internet access at home. Not all that likely, admittedly, but it is a possibility for someone looking for an innocent explanation. :) I think we should have an unofficial limit for the number of accounts we will create for an IP and I do think if an IP is asking for multiple accounts in a reasonable period of time, they need to be prepared to explain why the need multiple accounts. We've had folks on unblock-en-l who have cycled through accounts, as one is blocked, requesting another and so on until we put a stop to it. If people need multiple accounts, I think it reasonable to ask why. Sarah 16:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Sending User:Joe dorfman to WP:CHU if they have zero edits and want User:Joe Dorfman instead

A couple of times now, in the last few weeks, we (along with the folks at WP:CHU, the helpdesk, and others) have sent people around in circles in cases like this. They'll go to WP:CHU, WP:CHU will tell them they have no edit history and to just create the different name, they'll try that, and it will fail because it's too similar, they'll come to us, and we'll tell them.... wait for it.... to go to WP:CHU.

I propose we deal with it here if it shows up here, for 2 reasons. First, it saves the poor guy a trip. Second, WP:CHU requires bureaucrat action, while WP:ACC only needs admin action, so I suspect decreasing, in some small way, the backlog at WP:CHU (and the corresponding wait) would be appreciated by all involved. The only hurdle I would throw in their way: require them to log in with the first name, rather than an IP address, so we know everything is on the level. The only other decision we'd have to make is whether to allow a similar name if the first one was created recently but has no edits, and the requester claims to not be able to access that account; I've seen admins go both ways on this. I guess we could AGF and assume they aren't lying to us and go ahead and allow it.

So, does anybody have a problem if I start marking these as ACC|s with a recommendation to create, rather than send them to WP:CHU? Anything I haven't thought thru? --barneca (talk) 22:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with you that, for users for users with few or no edits, they should have their accounts created here rather than being sent to CHU.

As for the problem with people making these kinds of requests when they are not logged in, I think the reason this happens is that, by following regular interface links, they are only ever linked to the sign up page when they are logged out, and consequently, they visit WP:ACC whilst logged out. This problem could be solved by putting at the start of the instructions: #If you already have an account, even if you no longer wish to use it, please [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Userlogin?returnto=Wikipedia:Request_an_account log in] first then return to this page.

Some time ago, I looked at a small sample of new users and I found that if they made no edits beyond about a week, they were unlikely to ever edit. Therefore, I would suggest that accounts similar to existing accounts that are older than one week and with no edits should be OK to create.

Then we get the problem of users who claim to own the similar account but cannot log in/forgot the password/lost the e-mail address. If the older account they claim to own could be classed as inactive, there isn't a problem. If the older account is quite new, perhaps one way of checking ownership would be, if they previously had speedily deleted articles, to ask them about the content of that article. This isn't foolproof but I think it would be reasonably secure for this purpose.

As for assuming good faith, we still need to check up that what the requesters claim is true and provable, since although most people will be honest, there will probably be someone at some point who makes a malicious request and that could cause problems. Maybe one way of looking at it is to think what the worst possible damage they could do is if they are lying. In most cases this would mean being able to impersonate legitimate users. Tra (Talk) 23:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

First, I'm happy with marking username-adjustment requests as 'similar' and creating them (as an admin) if the user in question is logged in at the time to show that it's not an impersonation attempt. In the case of the previous account having no edits (for instance, if a user created an account via Special:Userlogin, didn't give an email, and forgot their password, all before ever editing), waiting a week would make sense so that impersonation is unlikely to be a problem. In the case of active older accounts, some sort of proof is needed; Tra's suggestion seems reasonable here (and interwiki similarity is another thing that sometimes comes up). I know that the 'crats won't perform username changes on the basis of a user owning an account they can't access without very strong proof, and likewise for devs inserting email addresses into databases; thinking about the worst thing that could go wrong impersonation is less of a problem then actually forcibly renaming someone who doesn't want to be renamed for no good reason and much less of a problem than allowing a malicious user to take control of an account (which is what happens if the 'crat or dev is hoodwinked into thinking that a user owns an account); therefore they have good reason to demand strong proof. It's a bit of an open question how much proof should be needed for WP:ACC similar-creations to active users on the basis that the same person owns both accounts, therefore; however, it happens sufficiently rarely in the case of actually active users that taking each case on its own merits rather than trying to preëmptively come up with a policy is probably the right thing to do here. --ais523 16:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

 Bureaucrat note: Generally when they get sent to WP:ACC it's inaccurate clerking. I always rename the capitalisation and spacing ones as I know they can't just make the new account. Secretlondon (talk) 09:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Requester's email made public

I notice several threads above, all saying that it's bad design to make email addresses visible to others for this process. I think you guys have made huge strides in improving the privacy of this process since many of those older comments were made, but it would still be good if there was a way to do it without giving out the email address. So. I noticed with interest Sarah's comment to someone on the project page that they could email unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org or unblock-enwiki@wikimedia.org for a new account instead. Is whoever deals with those lists willing to create new accounts? And if so, shouldn't we beef up the number of people doing it that way, and shut this page down? --barneca (talk) 23:06, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think this would be a bad idea to shut down this page, new users aren't really aware of privacy, and if they were, they would most certainly note a secondary email address which they use rather than their most common primary one for their Wikipedia account, I doubt any trolls would wish to go and annoy all of these people by email, personally. Qst 16:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

New users to the project aren't always new users to the Internet, or to Internet safety. Spebi 19:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we regularly create accounts via those addresses for people who either can't work it out themselves or who are blocked from account creation. The mailing list is run by admins and a few "trusted" non-admins for the purpose of reviewing blocks and creating accounts. The other address, unblock-enwiki@wikimedia.org, is the OTRS unblock queue. Both are fine to use for account creation requests. I'm not sure it is necessary to shut down this page, though. If people are happy to request an account and there are experienced editors willing to help them, I think it is okay, though I do agree with security concerns. Perhaps it would be good to add a notice at the top of the project page saying, "If you are not happy leaving your email address on this page, please email unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org or unblock-enwiki@wikimedia.org for account creation assistance." The sign in/account creation page directs people who are having trouble creating accounts here but people who are blocked receive this notice (see the second pink box at the bottom of the page titled "To request an account") which advises they send their preferred username and block details to the unblock list. So I guess where they go for account assistance depends on where they're getting their info from. I would definitely support a message at the top of the page explaining their options, though. Sarah 17:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I can help

I've placed Wikipedia:Request an account on my watchlist. I can help with these requests. New York Dreams (talk) 09:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

That's great, I'll direct you to review the instructions for reviewing requests here (it says "Administrators", but editors can help out with some requests, but please do not archive), and to review the appropriate templates, which can be found here. Please use those templates when commenting on names, and if you are not sure, just leave it to another editor and they'll take care of it. Additionally, I request that you blank Template:Failed, and request deletion of the page by placing {{db-author}} on it, since there are already the necessary templates at Template:ACC, thanks, and welcome! Ariel♥Gold 10:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I made the {{failed}} template because the {{ACC}} was a bit complicated as I'm just starting to get the hang of wiki editing. New York Dreams (talk)

No worries! Easily fixed, and the templates can be a bit confusing, you can just watch how others do things for a bit, to get the hang of things, and then take it slow. I've corrected those you've gone through to put the ACC templates in, but first step: Make sure there is an email provided. Second, click on "Listuser" to see if the name is taken. If it isn't, what I like to do is remove the last letter, and check again. Then remove another letter, sometimes you'll find the similar names that way that is preventing the editor from creating the account (sometimes there are more than one similar name, as well). If there are no similar names, you can click on "Create" and try to create it, if there is a similar name you didn't notice in listuser, it will tell you, and you can just add the similar template. Then an administrator knows that they'll need to create the account. And, as mentioned, if you have any questions, feel free to just leave it for another editor. Hope that helps! Ariel♥Gold 10:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Createaccount-text

We have new system messages (MediaWiki:Createaccount-text and MediaWiki:Createaccount-title) to customize the messages sent out by the account-creation function. Does anyone want to suggest an improved wording for them? --ais523 10:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

How about something like:

The account "$2" has been created on {{SITENAME}} for you.

You have been given a temporary password "$3". Please log in with these credentials where you will be prompted to change your password.

This account was created by someone at $1. You may ignore this message if it was created in error.

Tra (Talk) 23:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I have implemented this wording. Tra (Talk) 23:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Bold text--Hammad hayat (talk) 14:19, 27 March 2013 (UTC)êĒĕĘĎ

dfaekfkajfkwjgkjkgjkjgksgjksjkdfjgkdgjkgfdkjgkdjdkgjdkgjdkgjdkgjdkgjdkgjgkfjgkfjkfdjgkfjgk