Wikipedia talk:Request an account/Archive 4

Usurp for Doppelganger Account

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

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

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

User:Bmw doesn't look usurpable as this is the genesis of the article and GFDL significant. User:BMW may be, because there's only talk page edits and seemingly in poor faith. WP:USURP for that. Since they're both inactive, I could create you an account "BMw" or "BmW" or something of the sort. –xeno (talk) 15:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Could be opening myself up to a whole can'o'worms then...hmmm. BMW(drive) 18:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why this is necessary... If you can't usurp the account or create any of the others, neither can anyone else. The only potential concern is User:Bmw coming back as a troll after 4 years, or someone hacking the password to impersonate you. Mr.Z-man 20:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

New Template

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

Haha, it substitutes the entire calculatory syntax, a bit unwieldy, but I tried. Again, those better at template syntax than me, feel free to lead the way. WilliamH (talk) 21:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Ask xeno, he's excellent with templates —— RyanLupin • (talk) 21:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• My thoughts on this: I've removed the flag from a few folks and I just did it quietly. I dunno, I just think it's better just to take it off with a descriptive summary such as "not active in the WP:ACC process". Leaving them a message is just going to possibly get them riled up and bring attention to something that's pretty non-controversial. They're not losing it for abuse, just lack of use. In any case if we really do decide that we need to leave people a message, I wouldn't bother with the complicated syntax, just use a parameter "haven't participated in the ACC process in {{{1}}}" and you can pass it "60 days" "3 months", etc. –xeno (talk) 11:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I understand your reasoning - if I were to play devil's advocate, I would argue to remove it without any comment at all is somewhat discourteous. Explaining your reasoning at the given time is probably better than someone looking at their rights log and then launching into one, so I think a very short, undramatic note will do. WilliamH (talk) 12:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't really consider it discourteous - they were the ones who obtained the flag then ended up never using it. To further explain my reasoning, I haven't been removing it from people who were "once quite active" in the ACC process - they may return to do ACC work in the future. Just people who got the flag (without even meeting the typical requirements demanded at WP:RFR) and then never did any ACC work even after a month or two of having it. –xeno (talk) 16:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Odd IP address

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

Apparently, it's an IPv6- someone who's just more technically savvy than us. : D I've created the account, so we should be good. L'Aquatique[talk] 03:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Haha they're not more technically savvy than us it's just the new standard internet protocol and is the successor of IPv4. They're longer which allows flexibility in allocating addresses and routing traffic. But gawd, they're ugly looking things :P —— RyanLupin • (talk) 07:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm I cant wait untill I have to remember one of those to connect to a game server >.< ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 08:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to close the mailing list

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

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

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

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

Thoughts?

Rjd0060

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

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

Proposal

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

Wasn't that already requested a while ago and the devs said no? Or am I going bonkers? —— RyanLupin • (talk) 16:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Personally I think this is a good idea. It would speed up the process and as long as it is controlled nothing can really go wrong. I don't know if this has been requested before though. -·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 16:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion on giving accountcreators override-antispoof right —— RyanLupin • (talk) 16:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Already proposed, discussed, accepted, and submitted to the sysadmins. See bugzilla:14576. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Meh, that'll teach me to look through archives first. I was on holiday at that point: probabally why I missed it :P. Thanks anyway :-) Stwalkerster [ talk ] 21:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Error on Special:Login?

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

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

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

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

 DoneProblem fixed by RockMFR--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 04:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Note

There is discussion ongoing at Wikipedia_talk:Request_an_account/Administrators#It_is_time_for_the_community_to_act... that could probably use wider review. SQL^{Query me!} 06:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Granted

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

n00b questions

Hi-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New anti-spoof changes

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

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

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

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

Documentation

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

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

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

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

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

Removal of the 'ban' feature for non-admins

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

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

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

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

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

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

I emailed him before posting this. It was not his idea, nor was he involved in the coding. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 16:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea why Prodego restricted access, but it has been reverted now (Hopefully all the restricting code is gone at least...). However, we need to wait for someone to sync the live site with the subversion repository (aka when someone with root to the stable server finally decides to install php5-mcrypt). FunPika 19:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Tool shortcut

There is a Firefox add-on called Linky which makes working with the tool just that much faster. If you have it installed, then you can just select all the links you want to open in one go, right-click, select "Linky", and it gives you the option to open all the selected links in new tabs or windows. So, now it only takes me two clicks to open up all the links in the tool. Rock!--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 05:06, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Deferring to users.

Why have requests

• #15739
• #15743
• #15744
• #15746

been deferred to users, after they have been created or when they have been marked as taken? Is it something gone wrong with the interface? It can't be a mistake, since two users seem to have done it. Was there any reason for doing this, if it wasn't something gone wrong? Chamal ^talk 11:38, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

The interface is currently FUBAR. After clicking 'create', it's showing usernames as taken or created, but there is nothing in the creation log. [ roux ] [x] 11:39, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Interface font

Why are parts of the interface big and/or colourful? Why not keep it plain and simple? -- Mentisock 17:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the various colors help you see the different parts of the request and generally make some things stand out and also look nice :) ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 18:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with addshore. With the coloring as it is, I can quickly click all the links I need to evaluate a request, plus generate the page to approve the account if that's what I end up deciding to do, without risking accidentally banning the IP or telling the user I've handled or denied their request before I have done so. It's what I call excellent user interface design. ⇔ ∫Æ_S dt @ 19:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe an enhancement? In the user options have a style. We could use basic (almost colorless) and advanced (as it currently is). What does everyone think? ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 19:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't object. I don't really see the need to be able to turn the colors off, but if Menti and even a couple of others would prefer it that way, it probably wouldn't take the devs too long to whip up an alternate css and an option to switch between the two. It's already css-ified, so some level of interface customization'd be a snap. (She says, noting she doesn't have to live up to that as long as SHE doesn't have CVS access.) ⇔ ∫Æ_S dt @ 06:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm OK with Addshore's suggestion. But I think Mentisock was referring to the new warning message thingy in big red letters, which pops out at you when you look at the interface. The colours in the requests display area are actually helpful, as Addshore and Aubrey said. Chamal ^talk 11:06, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

<outdent> The big, colorful warning message can be sent away for a week at a time with the "Dismiss" link at the upper right corner of the message, already. ⇔ ∫Æ_S dt @ 14:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Is that warning message still necessary? I haven't had any false "taken" messages in over a week.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 02:04, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

AubreyEllenShomo: We use SVN, not CVS. :P --FastLizard4 (Talk•Index•Sign) 06:30, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Company/Group usernames. Policy inconsistencies. Recommended resolution?

Hello all. I just noticed an inconsistency in a rather often hit policy between a couple of policy pages on Wikipedia. The policy concern usernames and company/group names. WP:ACC says: "Your username must not: ... contain existing company, organization, or group names (including non-profit organizations)". I've noticed a lot of requests in the account tool being bounced as user name policy violations because of this. (example here closed as Username vio.) On the other hand, WP:U, the actual consensus-blessed policy says: "Use of a company or group name as a username is not explicitly prohibited, but it is not recommended, and depending on the circumstances may be seen as a problem." This doesn't seem to support bouncing a request as a username violation. In fact, I recently handled a request, here, where I created the account but left a message on the user talk page informing them of the policy, here. I am curious which of these courses of action is proper, and whether a policy should be made to clarify how these particular situations should be handled when they come through WP:ACC so they're handled consistently from person to person. (I'm also going to post a reference to this discussion to the talk page for WP:U, to garner more input.) What do you all think? ⇔ ∫Æ_S dt @ 00:57, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

My view, and I suspect it will be very unpopular, is that AGF is all well and good, but we're not stupid; someone signing up with a name like that is obviously working for the org, and will be making COI and POV edits in ten seconds after logging in. So on the basis of hearing quacking in the distance, I'd be in favour of blocking them through the tool. [roux » x] 02:58, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Here's what I think the gist of the policy is: Don't name your account after your company or group. But if you see someone with an account named after their company or group, don't freak out and insta-block them.

These names are problematic, so ACC people certainly don't have to help people create these problematically-named accounts, but that's substantially different from the ZOMG BLOCK THE SPAMMER knee-jerk response that's so typical on WP:UAA. Then again, I was just pointed here from the username policy and I don't know exactly how this tool works. Is "blocking them through the tool" really an apt phrase? It's not actually a block, it's just declining their request, right? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 09:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

No... IPs and email addresses can be blocked from making further requests. This is, as I understand it, usually only done for serial spammers and serial sockpuppeteers. //roux   10:16, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Is "Is Love really Jennifer Middlename Hewitt's middlename?" an acceptable username?

Before I proceed making edits with this username I have discerned that I should ask if the username I have chosen for various reasons "Is Love really Jennifer Middlename Hewitt's middlename?" is an acceptable username or not or debatable? I believe the question I ask in my username to be a valid question and is not "disruptive" nor "trolling" at least as defined within the Wikipedia appropriate username and other policies and principles. Comment here and/or on my discussion page please. Is Love really Jennifer Middlename Hewitt's middlename? (talk) 19:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Blocked as a sockpuppet of blocked 29 dot 21 dot 87 dot 7 (talk · contribs). Acroterion _(talk) 19:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions regarding similarity check

It's a good security feature that mediawiki checks whether a new user may be too similar to an existing one to prevent impersonation. I was, however, able to create a user with just one letter in small caps which went unnoticed by this check - "First lastname" in addition to "First Lastname". Please plug that hole. Thanks for your good work on Wikipedia.

P.S.: If I remember correctly, I did do that a while ago though. In a recent test, I couldn't repeat it. Anyway, please clarify. You can also reach me by email.

— J.S.^talk 10:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

glacial speeds

The tool as been extremely slow recently, just now I have been unable to get it to load. Is anyone else getting this? Icewedge (talk) 03:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

WORKSFORME. --FastLizard4 (Talk•Index•Sign) 05:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Whatever was happening seems to be over, it works for me now too. Icewedge (talk) 07:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

AccountCreator permission request

{{editprotected}} My IP is dynamic,a and has apparently reached its account creation limit. Please may I have the AccountCreator right so I can create accounts for people. Thanks! (I know this isn't technically an editprotected request, but it was the only way I could think of to get admin attention besides AN). Dendodge Talk^Contribs 18:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:Requests for permissions/Acc would be a lot quicker. :) PeterSymonds (talk) 19:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Bug in ACC password recovery program

I noticed that the password recovery system on Account Creator has a bug in it. When you try to recover your password, it sends you an e-mail with a link, just like it's supposed to. But when you follow the link, it just takes you back to the password recovery screen, where you enter your info again, and it sends you another email. It doesn't give you your password or give you a chance to reset it. ~SunDragon34 (talk) 01:03, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you have cookies disabled? Stifle (talk) 08:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

ACC

Resolved

 – Smallman12q (talk) 16:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello whenever I try to make an account on the ACC (Account Creator Control) interface I am told I already have an account on it and that my username is already registered but on the message I was sent about a week earlier it says that my account wasn't ready for creation which means that my account hadn't been made on the ACC so why am I getting that Error message! Can anyone help please? Thanks. L07ChLeo3 (talk) 20:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry I made a mistake now it has been fixed. Cheers. L07ChLeo3 (talk) 20:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Artificial account creation

I'm not sure if a tool currently exsists for checking whether there is a new account request(I am currently testing one I wrote), but I have found that a number of times, I have seen people appear as "currently online" and then moments later, there is an account request and they are handling it. This begs the question, are any of the account creators(perhaps in collaboration of other wikipedians), artificially requesting accounts(but for what reason, I don't quite know)? Mainly, I would like to know if in the past there have been any account creators who have been found to "artificially" create requests, or if there is simply a tool which knows when there is a request before it is posted at the Internal Account Creation Interface.Smallman12q (talk) 23:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not active with this anymore, but there used to be (and probably still is) a bot that watches the account request queue and notifies the account creators IRC channel that someone is requesting an account, so somebody can just pop over to the interface and create the account. Since there are usually at least a few people on the IRC channel, that probably accounts for the speed that you're seeing.--Aervanath (talk) 04:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm checked the statistics and those logged on literally every second for an hour and found that even then, people log on about 20-30 seconds before an account request comes up. Is the IRC channel really(20 seconds ahead) that much faster?Smallman12q (talk) 01:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. I'd ask one of the interface admins.--Aervanath (talk) 12:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Question.

"contain titles like "admin," "sysop," "crat," or "steward" which imply authority on Wikipedia"

I thought we were trying to dispel the aura of authority around syops, not make it more pronouced. Should this statement not be changed around?--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 19:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

You mean by inserting "can" or "may" before "imply?" It's a nice ideal, but a largely unavoidable fact that the community-driven processes for promotion, or just seeing the Admin userbox, often can imply a certain je ne sais quoi about an individual (with great power comes blah blah blah), much as a high edit count might. Less of an issue for established editors, who know that having "sysop" isn't a prereq for the flag, but new editors might not know that. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 23:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Suspended account

Is it possible to un-suspend my account on the toolserver? I've been inactive, but I did use the tool, and would like to regain access, so I can use it again. Bart133 ^{t c @} 15:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. John Reaves 17:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Bart133 ^{t c @} 18:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Antispoof-ignore

I think it might be useful if we changed the message at MediaWiki:Antispoof-ignore from "Ignore spoofing checks" to something more user-friendly. I've seen first-hand that many new Account creators helping out here are confused by it, and often wonder what it actually means, thus preventing them from creating the account. In the past, only admins would see this message, so we allowed some leeway, but now it is a different story. I think something like "Override similar account restrictions" would be a better idea. It's been discussed over the project's IRC channel, but we should discuss it on-wiki before making the change. The Earwig (Talk | Contribs) 22:09, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

'Ignore spoofing checks' -> 'Create even if too similar to another account' Josh Parris 00:49, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Too wordy, imo. Q ^{T C} 01:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, hyperlink spoofing then - that's the jargon in the message. Josh Parris 02:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Revamp

I've revamped the page for clarity and ease of maintenance. There are now two #switch statements instead of one, which permits an elimination of the previous massive duplication. If the two cases need to diverge more in future, using a switch to include separate subpages for each case would be easier to maintain. Rd232 ^talk 09:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I really dont like the layout, the uneven boxes and making it off centered makes it look horrible. Q ^{T C} 19:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, I took out the lefthand box and moved the right-hand boxout down. How's that? Rd232 ^talk 19:59, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

It should be explicitly stated that if you have already edited Wikipedia using another account, in general you should not create a new account. To support this, there should be links to (i) the reason why, (ii) what to do if you've forgotten the password for your existing account, (iii) what to do if you simply want to change your username and (iv) situations where alternate accounts are legitimate. - Pointillist (talk) 22:33, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Done, but in slightly abbreviated form, to avoid confusing newbies with too much detail. Rd232 ^talk 12:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

How?

How do I get account creator rights? The Arbiter^★_★^★ 00:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC) read the guide go here request an account (by pushing the create account ? button) an then create 6 accounts in a period of 24 hours and then request the right at WP:PERM.Venustas 12 (talk) 00:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

English Wikipedia Internal Account Creation Interface Approval

Could someone with admin access on the account creation request interface approve my account please, as no-one seems to have approved it yet. Thanks Paul2387 22:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Requesting Un-Suspension

I am requesting a review of my Suspension, I had been Suspended I believe in Fall 2008, Maybe the Start of 2009, I cannot remember why though, I have tried requesting to create another account using my Wikipedia Username "Arctic Fox", But it is already in Use, I have just recently come back to Wikipedia and start contributing again after my Wikibreak, And I would like to request using ACC again if permitted to,

Thanks, Arctic ^Fox 09:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I have some serious concerns

This system has many fundamental flaws of the privacy policy.

The interface is on the toolserver and releases IP information about users requesting accounts. By policy, these users should all be 18 and older and identified to the Wikimedia Foundation. To have access to such information, they must have the agreement of the Wikimedia community and/or the Arbitration Committee.

Second point: There is no governance for this access other than admins granting users the rights. This should at least be discussed by the Arbitration Committee or by another community source to determine access rights if this will continue to be hosted on the toolserver and not locally.

Third point: We have no on-wiki trail of process. I don't know if and/or/why an unblock has occurred if I don't have a ACC account on the toolserver. This defeats transparency and is not appropriate for the administration of the English Wikipedia.

Keegan (talk) 06:00, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I also notice that the project uses an @wikimedia.org email reply, without being a part of the volunteer response team system. Keegan (talk) 06:04, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

In short, I'm not seeing it.

1. First, IP information about users requesting accounts is nothing special. If someone asks unblock-en-l to create an account for them, we routinely ask for their IP address to determine the nature of the block. I'm fairly sure a number of admins on that list are not identified to the foundation; I, for one, am not. WMF privacy policy applies only to WMF sites, which Toolserver is not. The user is informed that their IP address will be disclosed, and I see no problem. That another site collects IP information and does not follow WMF privacy policy does not mean that we cannot link to it, or there would be no external links at all. (The alternative is to have all account creation requests sent to the checkusers...not an appealing idea, surely?)
2. Why is that necessary? I fail to see how this is somehow more dangerous than, say, rollback, for which we have no discussion process.
3. Nor does unblock-en-l, which as far as I can see no one has challenged here.
4. That address is what MediaWiki uses when you have the password sent by email. Tim Song (talk) 04:09, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

While the toolserver is WMDE not foundation, the rules dictate, that the toolserver does indeed fall under the guise of the Foundation privacy policy. Q ^{T C} 04:57, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

^That. In respect to Tim Song's remarks, we've been talking about it and perhaps my issue is not proper to the point. OverlordQ's point, as well as the checks and balances system that is in place. Also this is all just issues that I perceive. I have no problem being wrong to points; I'm just raising these issues for discussion. Keegan (talk) 05:06, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I missed that; regardless, since the user is informed that their IP is recorded and displayed, I'm not seeing a problem. Tim Song (talk) 05:22, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Playing devils advocate here, but:

1. The privacy policy does stipulate that a users private information may be given out with the users permission. The form to request an account does say that Note that if you use this form, your IP address will be recorded, and displayed to those who review account requests. By submitting the form, it could be said that the users have implicitly given permission for their user information to be released to those handling the requests.
2. Which rights are you referring to? The accountcreator right, or access to the tool? I would have to disagree and say there is more governance now, then there ever was. When it was on-wiki, any random user could come across and create the account, with the current ACC system it's generally made sure that the users have some inkling to Wikipedia policies before given access.
3. I'm confused as to what blocking has to do with this, ACC does not unblock anybody. The vast majority of requests involving blocks fall into these categories:

1. Declined
2. Vetted through a CU
3. The block itself tells people to request an account through this tool.

Q ^{T C} 05:18, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm a little confused by this. Is the claim that the toolserver is retaining this IP address indefinitely while the normal account creation process gets rid of the address after a few weeks? Is it that the addresses on toolserver are visible to users who aren't checkusers or had similar vetting? Neither of these should be happening if the toolserver is following the privacy policy. Or if it's comparable to regular account creation, then is there still a problem? I don't think it's that useful to show the address to non-checkusers, since if there's going to be any investigation of other activity from the address, it should include checking for edits under other accounts. I'm not keen on Q's argument that the user has given permission for disclosure or retention beyond what's involved in normal account creation. WP should not want such additional disclosure/retention in the first place, unless there's a good reason which I'm not seeing so far. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 18:25, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

The addresses on the toolserver are only viewable while the request is open. Once the request is handled, the IP is no longer displayed (with a few minor exceptions).

I don't think it's that useful to show the address to non-checkusers, since if there's going to be any investigation of other activity from the address, it should include checking for edits under other accounts.

What about checking for edits made by that account. Being able to see if that IP was used solely for vandalism is most certainly not useful. Helping people sock is a good thing.Q ^{T C} 01:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand this answer. Maybe I have a wrong impression of the workflow of these requests:

1. User requests account => since account doesn't yet exist, there are no edits from that account to check.
2. Looking at edits from the non-logged-in IP might reveal some obvious abuses, but if this is a concern, then checkuser should be routine, to find less obvious multi-account socking.
3. Account is created and request is closed => IP no longer visible, "except"... Question is how long the IP is retained after the request is closed. I'd expect it to be kept no longer than for normal editing, 1 month or whatever. Do you know if it's kept for longer than that?

69.228.170.24 (talk) 02:05, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

There is also a different issue: the account creation page uses http instead of https, making the account name/user IP combo susceptible to interception. Of course the emailed response is also potentially interceptable, but it might travel by a more secure route than the web page, so the unencrypted toolserver page increases exposure. I think the toolserver page should use https instead of http. This actually has much wider implications than are on-topic for the present discussion. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 22:13, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

As it stands at the moment, https is not available to users on the toolserver. Of course, if we moved it off the toolserver, then we could provide https (assuming a server owned by a wikimedian, or someone else). HOWEVER, that causes more privacy concerns than just being not https. I'll agree that https is a good thing, but we have few options here as far as I can see. Stwalkerster [ talk ] 01:34, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

What is the issue with running https on the toolserver? I also notice toolserver.org is running a closed-source web server (Zeus), which I thought wasn't in keeping with WMF practice. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 01:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, The Toolserver is an entity of Wikimedia DE. What the Wikimedia Foundation do for their own servers is up to them, its purely a choice they made to use a particuler httpd. To call it WMF practice implies that the toolserver is out of line, which it isnt. Regarding the question of http / https on the toolserver, this would be best directed at River Tarnell (The co-ordinating admin of the TS) Im sure he will be happy to answer your questions.   «l| Promethean ™|l»  (talk) 02:20, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe WMF practice has been to use FOSS software whenever possible. For a long time, secure.wikimedia.org popped browser warnings because WMF wasn't even willing to use commercial CA's, much less proprietary software (it had a cacert.org cert instead, which has weirdness of its own). Unless something has changed, I'd have thought that meant if the TS is WMF-operated, then it is indeed out of line (and if it's independently operated, then it's seeing way too much private data). I don't have it in me to hassle the folks running it over this either way, but using Zeus just seems like a surprising choice on all kinds of grounds. I may try to ask River about https. [Edited]. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 05:53, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

By the way, folks, I do appreciate the ACC team's work. Keegan (talk) 04:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

<-- I'm not going to repeat everything and I know I've said some of my things on IRC with Keegan earlier. First off (and it's kind of said above but just to make it clear) the return address used by actual emails from the team is the mailing list Account-en-llists.wikimedia.org the only @wikimedia.org email is the email automatically used for temporary passwords that an account creator gets no matter how their account is created (and we don't see). As I said to Keegan there are definitely issues with the way ACC is done both privacy whys and plain efficiency whys and we have the same (if not worse imo) issues with how unblock-l is run. Personally I think we need to take a look at how otrs is done but this isn't the exact location for that discussion. At the simplest we have a current issue with allowing mass people onto OTRS because they ALL need to be fairly vetted because they all get access to OTRSWiki which has some personal info. We need to find a way to allow groups on to the system who are trusted to do certain tasks but not see everything.

Both ACC and the unblock list are better then a lot of options but far from perfect. Options from all sides should be welcomed and looked at. James (T C) 06:50, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Forgive my cynical point of veiw, but more abuse has come of the Checkuser and Oversight tools (which are included onwiki) than that of ACC and Unblock-EN combined (which are off wiki). I'm no einstien but I think im onto something! Oh, and if that didnt make you laugh, perhaps we should redirect all account requests to the checkuser mailing list. I'd really like to see them keep up with the (up to) 2500 requests a month from ACC alone neverloan unblock-en!   «l| Promethean ™|l»  (talk) 10:05, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Regarding HTTPS on the toolserver: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/toolserver-l/2010-May/003161.html . Also, the toolserver gets a direct copy of all the wikimedia databases afaik. However, the only people who can see the full databases are the toolserver admins, who are all vetted by the WMF. Apart from that, the toolserver is a separate entity from the WMF, and therefore doesn't abide by the same FOSS idealism that the foundation uses - and the foundation FOSS thing is an idealism (they'll use FOSS where possible, but it won't stop them from using propriety stuff when it's better or they have to. Stwalkerster [ talk ] 11:57, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Aren't blocked users unable to use ACC and referred to unblock-en-l anyway? Stifle (talk) 19:57, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Why would blocked users be unable to use ACC? Using it doesn't involve making any edits. The user just clicks a link to an off-wiki url. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 20:09, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Because the tool prevents users who are blocked from creating an account. They are redirected to unblock-en-l so the people with more experience with blocks can deal with it. Stwalkerster [ talk ] 20:12, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

The only exception to that is Range Blocks we still accept, but they are only created after a Checkuser has given the all clear.   «l| Promethean ™|l»  (talk) 03:42, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Wanted to get a clarification re blocked IPs and ACC

Sorry if there's a better venue for this, but for a little while now when I come across IPs that are either directly or rangeblocked anon-only + account creation blocked I have advised them to either log in if they have an account already or come here if they don't. Is that correct? Syrthiss (talk) 12:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposal: Mandatory membership in the accounts-enwiki-l mailing list

Over the last few days, some drama has broken out on ACC regarding account suspensions. While the details of the aforementioned drama are beyond the scope of this proposal, it would seem that the conflicts have at least partially been fueled by the fact that one of the users involved, despite being involved in the ACC project, never subscribed to the accounts-enwiki-l mailing list. To me, the mailing list is the ideal place for on-the-record discussion amongst ACC users, a task which I believe the #wikipedia-en-accounts IRC channel unfit for due to its no public logging policy. Therefore, I am proposing that it be made mandatory for all users to be approved to access the ACC interface on the toolserver to subscribe to the accounts-enwiki-l mailing list, and final approval for their ACC tool account not given until it can be verified that they are subscribed. In addition, I propose that the mailing list be made the official medium for dispute resolution between ACC members and discussions regarding account suspension (that is, ACC tool account suspension).

As I mentioned, there are many benefits to doing this. Foremost is that the mailing list is an official and on-the-record form of communication. If all ACC users were to be compelled to subscribe to it, its archives would be freely available to all ACC users. IRC, on the other hand, is comparatively off-the-record, mainly because of its no public logging policy, and, to be "on-the-record," would require each ACC user to maintain a persistent connection to IRC and maintain their own log files. In addition, making accounts-enwiki-l subscription compulsory and including dispute resolution as one of its uses would help avoid angry outcries against such emails when they do appear, for they would, for lack of a better phrase, be included in the job description.

Of course, this isn't without its problems; for example, what's to prevent someone from unsubscribing from the list immediately after their ACC tool account is approved, and exactly how would the process of ensuring that a prospective user is subscribed to the list before their account is created would work. The unsubscribing problem is, admittedly, a little hard to prevent; most likely, it would be a "you'll get suspended if we notice that you're unsubscribed" sort of thing. And, in my mind, the process of ensuring subscription would work something like this:

1. User requests access to the ACC tool
2. As currently done, talk page interaction would occur to ensure that the user actually requested access
3. Standard discussions between admins (perhaps on the mailing list?) and/or admin decision
4. If the admin decides to approve, they leave another message on the requester's talk page, saying that their request will be approved once they are confirmed to have subscribed to the mailing list. Message would include links to the mailing list, etc., and ask the user to reply on the admin's talk page once they've subscribed
5. Once the admin verifies that the user has subscribed, their account is approved

Another problem is how do we ensure that the user has subscribed? Specifically, how do we link the username to the email address? Well, the mailing list does request verification of your identity before allowing you to subscribe, so perhaps something could be done here (such as a mailing list admin "tagging" the ACC tool account request as "confirmed to have subscribed to the mailing list") to achieve that. Of course, the above procedure is completely unrefined, and I'm sure there could be some way to improve it, perhaps by modifying some code somewhere.

And, for all of this, there is another alternative, which is making the #wikipedia-en-accounts IRC channel publicly logged, but this could cause problems in terms of logged messages from ACCBot and such. --FastLizard4 (talk•contribs) 07:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

While I am no longer a member of the team (eh, maybe again one day), this strikes me as smart. Public logging of the channel is smarter, just write a script to have ACCBot be ignored, or have it work via /notify (and have the logging account /ignore ACCBot). →ROUX ₪ 08:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

As a moderator for the mailing list (at the moment - given the current drama etc), I get a message every time someone subscribes, is approved, or unsubscribed from the mailing list (as well as every time a message is caught for moderation). Good idea. [stwalkerster|talk] 12:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::I support FastLizard4's proposal. But, is there a way for mailing list admins to closely monitor the list of subscribers? Maybe some kind of system could be created where they'll be notified if someone leaves the list? I don't know if that's possible on the technical part though. Public IRC logs should also be considered... because some vital parts of the you-know-what-drama occurred in the IRC channel and not everyone will always use the mailing list for communication purposes. Bejinhan talks 12:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Public logging seems OK, but half of what we discuss is off-topic. Mandatory mailing list subscriptions should be a definite. Not everyone is on IRC all the time, but mailing lists are easier to get big announcements up for everyone to see, and there's no need to go through logs and such. —fetch·comms 21:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• I'd support mandatory membership on the mailing list -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:43, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
• I'd support mandatory membership of the mailing list (and suggest we have a couple more mailing list admins to relieve the increased workload) whilst completely and utterly opposing any public logging of IRC logs in any shape or form whatsoever Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 08:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Alexandr: I should be more active from now onwards, so hopefully we won't need any more mailing list admins (I'm sure Stwalkerster would appreciate the help! ;)), that said, I've not been seeing how big the workload is recently. The Helpful One 17:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Extra workload will just be a case of sitting on -owner and poking the tool appropriately. We're getting 6-10ish spam per day, and about 0.5 valid mails per day AFAIK, though I've pulled those figures from intuition only. In general, I support IRC logging, but at the same time making public the amount of shit we talk about in there, and bot alerts? That's about all we talk about, other than the odd occasion anyway. I don't think it's a good idea to be public. FWIW, both ACCBot and Helpmebot keep logs, albiet designed for debugging purposes only, and generally speaking those logs aren't made available for general consumption, but I have referred to them several times over the course of the recent drama. Just throwing in another suggestion. [stwalkerster|talk] 20:39, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Not intentionally trying to sound rude or specifically targeted at stwalkerster either, but the channel is public - it's not password protected and anyone can walk into it/observe/log it. Although a member of the ACC team could probably be thrown off for posting logs, the only action that could be taken against someone else would be to ban them from the channel (Wikipedia doesn't have any juristiction on Freenode and vice versa) and they can only be banned if their username was known. I don't think that's ever happened, but I'm just trying to demonstrate a scenario and when the channel is open to all it should be assumed that logging is occuring and if it's occuring then it should be official nullifying any 3rd party. Maybe it's just because I've been on IRC since 1996 and spent 5 years actually running a rather large network that I'm not so fussed about this, but IRC is largely a public medium and if you don't want something to come back and bite you, don't say it (the same can be said of email, webpages and even chat messages though!).  ZX81  ^talk 15:40, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

A good point - perhaps it can be like -admin and -privacy, which you can't join unless you are approved? -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea - that way perhaps they could be signed up to the mailing list and the channel at the same time? The Helpful One 22:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• Mandatory joining the mailing list sounds like a very good idea to me although obviously you can only lead a horse to water, you can't actually make it drink (or in this case read the emails).  ZX81  ^talk 15:43, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
• Making joining the mailing list mandatory seems like a perfectly reasonable idea to me. Maybe all of this drama could be lessened if that were to happen? :) However, I completely oppose public logging of the IRC channel. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 21:27, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Mandatory subscriptions to the mailing list for all users using the ACC interface on the toolserver is a great idea. You have my support. Mlpearc powwow 15:03, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

E-mail address of requestor

Should we add something to this indicating that we are not able to accept requests from free e-mail services such as hotmail? From what I understand from others at Unblock-en-l, we generally don't, and that makes sense, because it seems like it would be awfully easy for a sockpuppeteer or vandal to bypass the block by repeatedly requesting accounts with throw-away e-mail addresses.

How do we handle slightly more respectable free e-mail services, like gmail? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Current practice is to request non-free emails only when there is a problem with the IP such as those mentioned above. Otherwise we AGF, in the same way that standard account creation without using the ACC process does not require non-free emails. Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 12:45, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this - I think if we removed all the accounts which were created using free email addresses, we'd lose an awful lot of our established editors! If I remember correctly, my first email which I registered with was probably a hotmail one - although I might be wrong - and I changed to my current non-free one when I acquired my own domain. Unless there is a problem as you mentioned, there is no reason why an account should not be created with a free email address. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't exactly have an email address either - my free email address does the job for me - and allows me to separate wiki stuff from all the other emails I receive. The Helpful One 22:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I would have GMail, which I don't really trust as "stable" much, as you can still easily get more than one (I have two :P). The current practice of only asking for stable emails when rangeblocked seems fine; unblock-en-l deals with blocks only, so that makes sense. Otherwise, it's probably much easier on the requesting users to be able to use their regular free email. —fetch·comms 02:51, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Well you know what, Fetchcomms? I have three Gmails. Hah. Anyways, I don't think it would be worth it do not allow requests from free e-mails. I wouldn't have been able to get an account if I had requested one, and I obviously have good intentions, right? Right? ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 16:35, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

My bad. I was only thinking in terms of blocked IPs. Most of the requests we get to the mailing lists are from free e-mail hosts; I do wonder if there's some way to make it clearer up front that in those circumstances free e-mail hosts are inappropriate, since we waste a lot of time going back and forth. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:53, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Signing email replies and custom closes

In order to facilitate communication, both with the person receiving the email and those of us reading the mailing list, I propose that email replies and custom closes be signed by the user handling the request:

For and on behalf of the English Wikipedia Accounts Creation Team

User:XYZ

This will help with transparency and tracking of requests handled. Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 03:07, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Just to be a little picky, many of us do have signatures that go in emails. Granted, not all of us do. Personally i am not so fond of dictating a fixed signature as above, if only for my putting my name first and on custom closed i add in my user name and Wikipedia Account Creation Team for a 3-line signature. On internal emails we don't need to be telling each other that we are part of ACC but a name or user name signature for convenience is a nice idea.

On custom closes, yes please a signature. We have the luxury of looking up things to see who handled a request if we want to know who likely sent the email. If you don't add some kind of signature to a custom close then the recipient has no idea who it is coming from and even though it is not it can take the appearance of being just another form-letter-email. If you do a custom email outside of the tool the reverse issue is present, please include the request number if it is not a request submitted via email that you are replying to (those don't get a request number as they are outside of the tool). delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 04:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Alexandr, if you are referring to that short and curt email that went into the mailing list, I think that it is a very rare occurrence. I think that most, if not all of us, do have signatures. The user who did the custom email was obviously in a hurry to "brush-off" the issue. The signature was not the only problem. The contents was also a problem. I think that we should have a courtesy rule. That email clearly did not reflect courtesy/politeness. Bejinhan talks 04:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The format I suggested is just that, a suggestion; as long as there is the username I'm happy. I was also only referring to emails that go to users outside of the team sent from the nebulous list address. I'm aware that most people do already use their signatures, in varying forms, but I thought that it was time to codify this in the documentation. Bejinhan also brings up a valid point, that we should have a small section on how to handle custom closes/emails with the basics: courtesy, clear explanations that don't bewilder the newcomer and wrap them up in internal jargon, and a general rule of helpfulness. Whilst all of these points may seem blindingly obvious to most of us, we've had a few emails that have been substandard in the past few months. Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 10:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The format is, I think, best left to the individual. However, I feel that the basic "rule" should be that if you reply via the mailing list, or do a custom close, you sign it with your username (for example, I end mine: Regards, Steve ("Phantomsteve" on Wikipedia) on behalf of the Account Creation Team - but a signature of some kind would be good. (For custom close, I generally start with something along the lines of Request ##### "Requested-Username", but that's more to make it easier to track it, without having to look at the headers!) -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Adding in directions and an example custom letter into the ACC guide onwiki is a good idea. Then, people can choose how to sign their messages, but also know that it is necessary that they do sign them, and whatnot. —fetch·comms 21:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Account appears to have gotten diddled

I have been trying to log in under my current user name ("Tucci78") for about two weeks now, and my password has not worked. Requesting a new password per my tested and functional e-mail address has not resulted in a new password being sent to me. For this reason, I suspect that the e-mail address listed for me at Wikipedia has been corrupted. Has anyone information on how I can communicate this possibility to an administrator? There does not appear to be a means by which such contact can be established. -- Tucci78 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.125.158.83 (talk) 16:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Please try to email any administrator or request a usurp. You can read more of that at WP:CHU/U.  JoeGazz  ▲  01:08, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Question

I apologize is this is not the correct location for asking the following questions. I am wondering if there is a way to have a single, universal account for Wikipedias of all languages and/or Commons. I have the same username on English Wikipedia and Commons, and I have seen my username on other languages (see here, even though I don't speak this language or recall editing on this Wikipedia). Can someone explain how this happens, if a universal account can be created, or simply point me in a direction where I can get more information about any of the above? Thank you for any assistance. --Another Believer _(Talk) 17:46, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Never mind--I found information about unified accounts. --Another Believer _(Talk) 19:11, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Request to Reactivate account on ACC

Hi. I posted to #wikipedia-en-accounts, but was also told to post here, to make sure it was seen. I'd like to request that my account creators setup be reactivated, so that I may start to make accounts for people again. I was deactivated under the 45 day inactivity rule. I was listed as BarkingFish. Cheers BarkingFish 03:52, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Assistance required from Interface administrators

Resolved

Is there anything additional that needs to be done here? If yes or no, can anybody assist the editor in question? Or advice me on what to do? Thanks guys. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 05:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Global account status

In user account preferences, what is "Global account status: In migration" ?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nirman (talk • contribs) 20:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

This is not the appropriate venue for such a question. See meta:Help:Unified login. — Waterfox ^~talk~ 15:22, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Night of the Big Wind Bot

I hereby confirm that I have requested this bot-account. Night of the Big Wind (talk) 01:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, will deal with @usertp. -- DQ (t) (e) 01:50, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

SUL utility

The link in the tool for the SUL utility should probably be changed to http://toolserver.org/~quentinv57/tools/sulinfo.php?username=$1&showinactivity=1&showblocks=1&hidelocked=1 - a redirect seems to have been set up anyways. — Kudu ^~I/O~ 15:05, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Venustas 12/Request an Account

can I create a User:Venustas 12/Request an Account page where I.P addresses go give me there email address ( I send them a five letter code send it to their email and ask them to type it on the User:Venustas 12/Request an Account to confirm the email) and I create their accounts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Venustas 12 (talk • contribs) 01:50, 25 January 2010

International log in

I use my username ("solymosi") and password in the German and the Hungarian Wikipedia. I cannot log in to the English one. I asked several times for emailing my password - I never received one. Maybe someone else uses the same username here? Are the national logins independent? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.188.225.183 (talk • contribs) 20:48, 17 February 2011

I have bad news for you: This link says that there are indeed 4 different accounts created, but they are all independent since there was never a SUL account created. At the moment there is a simple way to merge the accounts together if you have the login details. Right now, it looks like that an independent person created that account, but you can request a ursupation of that old account at Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations. Regards, mabdul 14:01, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Notice: Forthcoming account creation requests

Hi Account Creators, it's that time of the year again when Wikipedia:School and university projects/Polytechnic of Namibia becomes active. We expect +- 250 members now, and another 350 in November. All students are instructed to mention "Polytechnic of Namibia" in the comment field, should they have to go through ACC. IP addresses connected to our institution are in the 196.12.10.0 /24 range. If you have any questions about this project, please approach me on my talk page. Thank you, Pgallert (talk) 06:49, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Need an accountcreator's help

The "account problems" thread at WP:HD involves someone who wants to register as Grrlscientist, but can't because of the already-existing GrrlScientist, who registered in 2010 but never made any edits. It's been recommended that this would-be account holder come here, but s/he is having trouble with that as well. Could someone please help this person? The IP in question is 87.155.93.233, if that helps at all. Nyttend (talk) 02:22, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

CheckUser authorization?

It seems like only a handful of CheckUsers have ACC Toolserver usage authorization, and about a couple are reasonably active. Do all CheckUsers have ACC authorization? If it isn't true, I would think they should automatically get authorization. Just a thought. -- Luke (Talk) 16:09, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I think this proposed is a really good idea. A few months ago we had a big backlog of account requests which needed a CU, luckily I'm a bit familiar with some because of some chats in different IRC channels. Since then we have "a new CU" helping us out (and luckily very active atm). mabdul 20:56, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Right now we actually as I've seen it had 2 very active CUs if not three. All Checkusers are entitled to flags once they register for their own account, otherwise, we can't force them to have an account. I know for a fact that not all CUs want to register either, so we have to let them do it on their own. But I am happy to approve all CUs and poke Stwalkerster for the Checkuser flag for them. -- DQ (t) (e) 00:24, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

It may not be necessary for all CUs to have access, like you said, but it can useful if there is a backlog of requests. They don't have to be active, either. -- Luke (Talk) 00:28, 29 December 2011 (UTC)