Wikipedia talk:Request an account/Guide/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Antispoof

This guide is supposed to help us in using the tool. While the tool should be updated to reflect the new antispoof override ability we have, we should wait to update the guide until the tool itself is updated.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 08:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to get in a revert war over this, so I won't revert immediately, but the point I am trying to make is that the tool has been updated; the developers have updated the interface (don't believe me? http://stable.toolserver.org/acc/sand/acc.php shows the developer changes, or you can check the SVN logs - this diff in particular, pay attention to line 1152), but the interface is waiting for a sync from SVN to live. The reason why we should make the change now is because there is only one thing stopping the process: SQL, OverlordQ, or Cobi simply have to enter the channel and say the word "!svnup" and the bot will magically sync the tool (I am a developer for the tool, so I should know). --FastLizard4_SOCK (talk) 18:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, it wasn't clear to me that they "sync"ing referred to in your edit summary was as straightforward as that. I'll go revert myself. Hopefully the tool will be sync'ed before the new guide confuses anybody else besides me.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 16:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 16:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Ban Management

The red links to block an IP seem to have vanished. What's happening? Mayalld (talk) 14:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Account deactivated

I used to be registered to review requests on the toolserver, but recently logged in and received the error "Inactive for 45 or more days. Please contact a tool admin if you wish to come back." However, I am having difficulty finding a list of who qualifies as a tool admin, or how/who to ask regarding re-activating my account. My apologies if this is the incorrect place to ask, but I was unsure where else to try. Thanks. Raven1977^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 19:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

OverlordQ (talk · contribs) and Stwalkerster (talk · contribs) ? -- Tinu Cherian - 06:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Link

The link to register is NOT working. I keep getting an error. Any ideas? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 10:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The link works fine for me. This one, right? What kind of error are you getting? The Earwig (Talk | Contribs) 19:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Opera still says this:

You tried to access the address http://stable.toolserver.org/acc/acc.php, which is currently unavailable. Please make sure that the Web address (URL) is correctly spelled and punctuated, then try reloading the page. Make sure your Internet connection is active and check whether other applications that rely on the same connection are working.

--Rsrikanth05 (talk) 12:03, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I fixed the links on the page to reflect the new server. Willking1979 (talk) 01:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot.. __Rsrikanth05 (talk) 10:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Password

Why shouldn't the password of the interface be the same as the Wikipedia password? Debresser (talk) 16:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The Toolserver's eighth rule; basically, your password is stored much less securely on the Toolserver than on Wikipedia (if you chose to use it as your interface password), and the tool has no way of knowing whether the password is correct (if done automatically). — The Earwig @ 18:07, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I understand the security argument. The eight rule mentions only that the tool must not ask for the Wikipedia password. It still leaves up to the user's discretion which password to use. After informing the user of the hightened risk as per the securty argument, in my understanding a user would still be allowed to choose any password he likes, inculding his Wikipedia password. Debresser (talk) 18:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Inactive definition?

What is the definition of "inactive" for the tool? Does it mean 45 days without dealing with a request, or 45 days without signing into the interface? It's not a big issue - I don't think I'd meet either condition in the forseeable future - but I was just curious. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes I'm on the interface for hours and there just are almost no requests, and if there are, somebody "snatches" it away in the five minutes I was editing something else on Wikipedia, or making a cup of tea. Debresser (talk) 22:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Qualifications for using the tool interface

Currently the qualifications for using the tool interface are:

• Currently unblocked on the English Wikipedia.
• Agrees and understand the ACC guidelines.
• Have more than 20 edits on the English Wikipedia.
• Account age older than 60 days.

However, in practice I don't believe that people with just 20 edits are being granted access. Should this not be updated to reflect what qualifications we think are more reasonable? -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 14:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think a set amount of edits should be needed. I would just suggest enough edits to show that the requester understands the project's important rules and is making constructive good-faith edits. Mm40 (talk) 18:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree, as long as the user seems like they would be able to use it correctly, edit count doesn't really matter. However, if a user has very few edits and doesn't appear very active, I doubt they would get approved anyhow.  fetchcomms☛ 18:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

To follow up on fetchcomms, i doubt such a user would be applying. Unlike most everything else this is not a consensus approval; this is one tool admin saying "i trust you with tool access". Ultimately they have to decide for themselves what is acceptable. I still prefer the phraseology that ascribed no definitive limits. There could be a clean start user and well they could have 5 edits on their new account but have 4 years of active experience. If it were disclosed privately to a tool admin then ok by me. Do we really want an RfACCTool consensus bureaucracy? The lack of such a gimmick here was a most appealing aspect of this project for me. Its not like the users who have been approved are bad. I haven't seen a reasonable request refused. The only one of late that i have noticed turned away was a brand new user and that was in part due to lack of need for more staff. Not everyone has Account Creator automatically given to them with their tool access either. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 18:53, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy with something along the lines of the applicant being an editor in good standing. I stumbled upon these requirements as they are currently listed on the page quite by chance and found them odd. Hence me bringing them up here. ---- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 19:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Having had time to think on this subject, I feel that the main criteria (not mentioned above) is already on the guide: Usually a user should simply be trusted by the approving administrator.. As such, I feel that the 20 edits requirement is not needed — the others cover most of what we would expect, and the 20 edits is either too low, or not required at all — and I think it's the latter rather than the former! As such, I think that the "be trusted" sentence should be put in bold, and the "20 edits" bit be removed totally. Just my 0.02 -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Account creator's template

Is there a template for people who make accounts (I am not referring to the Accountcreator template)? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 19:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

What kind of template do you mean then? -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not referring to the Accountcreator template. I mean, is there a template for people who have access to the interface? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 23:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you perchance mean a userbox? -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 07:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I think THFSW is asking if there is a UBX for those who work on the ACC project but who do NOT have the account creator permission. To the best of my knowledge there presently is no such UBX but i think i will go make one. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 16:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done Here you go. Fresh off the press, one {{user wikipedia/ACC}} user box. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 16:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that's exactly what I'm talking about. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:48, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Nice job on the UBX, delirious. Also, a good recommendation in the first place, High Fin Sperm Whale. Swarm^(Talk) 08:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

No contribs?

I've created three accounts so far, and I've noticed none of them have made any contributions whatsoever. Is this common? Not that I think I'm making a mistake, but it seems a little odd that 3/3 creations I've done have been completely pointless. Swarm^(Talk) 08:41, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd guess that about 95%+ of all the accounts which I have created (130-140, iirc) have never been used since. So, yes, it is common! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:14, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Ha, what an incredibly useful service we're offering! Swarm^(Talk)

I was just looking at the 152 accounts I have created, 14 have some contributions (9%), with a further 6 with deleted contributions only (4%) - that's 20 accounts that have some activity (13%!) (and only about 2 of those have more than about 10 edits). -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I've made 14 accounts so far, and only one has any contribs. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Another question

Why must one have account creator privileges to create a "similar" username? I don't want to sound like I'm complaining that it's like that, but I don't understand why those without the privilege aren't trusted to determine whether an account is inactive or not. Swarm^(Talk) 08:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

It's just the way the software works! From my work on ACC, I'd guess that somewhere between 10% and 20% required an editor with "account creator" privileges. I requested the right, not because of creating "similar" names but because I was getting to the 6-account-creations-a-day limit, and couldn't create more! There are enough account requests which do not need the privilege to keep you busy! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:14, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess it's similar to any other privilege. You have to show experience without it to be trusted with it, and that experience is shown by reaching the limit... but on the other hand, the limit itself seems kind of unnecessary. Meh, not worth any more thought.

Thanks for your helpful answers, Steve. Swarm^(Talk) 11:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Just to throw in my 9 ¢, the account creator permission is a break off from the Admin rights. If you look through the revision history for the Guide you will notice this, or if you log out and go to create a new account you will see that it says an administrator can create an account for you if you are having issues with the captcha. Along with doing more than 6 in one day and creating similarly named accounts the account creator permission also allows you to edit any editnotice and override the blacklist meaning one could create some very inappropriate account names. Trust and need is what it comes down to. Sorry i'm two days late to the discussion. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 11:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

ACC trouble

What's this I hear about ACC having technical difficulties? When I tried to help handle requests this morning, but it was having trouble and was a complete madhouse. Is it still having difficulties? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 03:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Clairification

So.. A user recently requested account creator rights, but was declined because the have no experience in creating users, and was referred to the guide here. Yet, the guide seems to me to show how to create usernames after getting permissions.. To me, at least, it seems you need permissions to get access to the tools so you can get experience to justify getting the permissions for the tools? (circular logic) I know this can't be - I must be missing something. The long and short of this is - how can I help create users without account creator permissions? Assuming this is possible. I would like to help out, especially since I have been trying to lend a hand at WP:UAA. ^Avicenna_sis @ 07:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes... Account Creator permission is not given out to everyone. You do need to demonstrate a need/trust for it as it is includes the admin right to override the MediaWiki:Titleblacklist in addition to creating similarly named accounts and creating more than 6 accounts in one day. To help out creating accounts you do need to request access to the ACC tool. Access is granted to new users when there is a need and if the reviewing ACC Tool admin likes what she or he see when reviewing your edits here (no vandalism, no blocks, etc.). You can request ACC Tool access here. After "getting your feet wet" creating accounts for a while you can ask for the Account Creator permission but be prepared with examples of why you should have the permission. Many of the ACC Tool admins are also WP admins so it can be as quick as asking in the IRC channel #wikipedia-en-accounts ^connect and getting a reply there. I hope this helps clarify things for you. While not an admin myself i think you would be a wonderful compliment to ACC but it is a little slow so i can't say for sure if anyone feels the need for more help. Still, do apply. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 10:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah. I see. Permission for the tool server is seperate from account creator permission. That makes sense to me now. I had requested an account back in early Feb, and was politely turned down. (I posted the email on my talk page, in the interest of full disclosure.) At that time, I was asked to re-apply in a few months. I may do so. Thank you for the positive feedback, as well as clearing up my misunderstanding. ^Avicenna_sis @ 17:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Checkuser needed

Was this section just added, or is it only there when someone defers to Checkusers? Also, why would you need a Checkuser? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

This is a recent addition to the tool. If you find that a checkuser has placed a block or a rangeblock on an IP, then it can be deferred to the CheckUsers. They will look at it and either create/decline the request themselves, or let other tool users know whether it can be created or not (usually by leaving a comment on the IRC channel) -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

In the interests of traceability either a) the CU has an account on ACC and must leave a comment on the request itself or b) if a CU without access to the tool opines then the user who is in contact with the CU must leave a comment on the request itself. I'll knock up a section on the CU needed in the near future, unless someone else wants to do so ;) Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 07:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Closing

After the appropriate action has been taken how do I close a request? - Schrandit (talk) 06:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

All of the brown links close the request. --Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 08:06, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks, I must not have actually submitted it. - Schrandit (talk) 09:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

If the account is too similar - confusion

It says;

If the similar account has zero edits:

• The account must have zero global contributions.

Is The account a) the actual name requested, or b) any similar names?

The chart seems to indicate that it refers to the similar-named accounts.

If that is the case, then for example: If a user requests the name "SAUSAGEFACE" (which does not exist), and there is a User:SausageFace on FR with one old contribution, SUL, we should not make the account. Is that correct? Seems quite limiting, if that is the case - well, not for that name, but for e.g. 3 letter usernames that could be initials, etc.  Chzz  ►  07:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Note, this would mean we have a higher requirement for non-local edits than for local ones. If there was a local user with a similar name with one edit, it would be permitted (if old)- because it had fewer than about fifteen edits.  Chzz  ►  07:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

some of this may repeat what Chzz wrote since i was interrupted in saving my comment by an edit conflict notice Chzz and i were discussing this on IRC as it keeps coming up. Before it was codified in the new chart i always applied the same standards of activity to global edits as to local ones when considering allowing a similarly named account. To keep with Chzz' example, if someone wants SAUSAGEFACE (talk · contribs) but there is SausageFace (talk · contribs) with one edit on FRWP then that one edit on a global project secures any similarity from being created on ENWP. That is placing the edits of other projects to a higher value than local edits, which is kinda odd. If SausageFace's single edit were to ENWP then the similarly named account would be fine per current policy to create, assuming other criteria are met. Lets bring the policy to a reasonable, level standard. delirious & lost ☯ ^{~talk to her~} 07:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

That's not the only thing, though; I do feel that the section could be much clearer, as a whole. We've had lots of puzzlement over the exact criteria; I would SoFixIt but I can't, 'coz I'm not really clear about it myself.  Chzz  ►  07:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I concur that the same standards should be applied to global edits that are applied to local edits i.e. around fifteen. Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 07:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it's the same standards where possible :) Stwalkerster [ talk ] 11:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree, this will avoid confusion and is a fairer policy. - EdoDodo ^talk 11:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Case-only differing usernames

I would like to draw the attention of the watchers of this page to this discussion, where I am proposing to modify the username policy to prohibit the creation of new accounts which differ only in character case from existing en.wiki accounts, regardless of age or activity level:

Wikipedia_talk:Username_policy#Case_conflicts_in_usernames

Cheers,

Thparkth (talk) 04:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

AGF

When dealing with a request to create an account, the approach must be:

• Is there any compelling reason why I should NOT make the account?

Wikipedia - we want people to edit things, and we definitely want them to create accounts. Usually, they can do that themselves, but when they cannot - for whatever reason - they request through ACC.

We do not need to "second guess" their motivation. We do not need to over-analyze.

I've seen far too many requests brought into question simply because the username or email addy happens to be a little bit like a company name, or the CEO of a company / member of a band / word-famous cat / whatever.

This kind of examination is utterly over-the-top.

IF there is some clear indication of a problem - such as a request for username "BobsFish" from RobertoSmellypants@bobsfish.com then sure, by all means decline it as a company name.

But if there is a request for username "BobsFish" from some random email address, and there is no reason to make a connection with the org of that name (a quick look at the IP, comment, contribs, etc), then just make the account.

This is what AGF means.

</rant>

(I do not know if this is the best forum; I'm sure, if appropriate, someone will forward this to mailing list, or factor the gist of it into help files, or what-have-you)

 Chzz  ►  19:16, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Company names as usernames

A recent change to the guide[1] alters the wording from suggesting that company names are always considered promotional, and should never be created, to suggesting instead that the evidence surrounding the username request (where was the requester located, what was their email address etc) to make a judgement about the requester's intent.

I actually agree that this would be a reasonable approach in most cases, but the fact is that it blatantly contradicts WP:CORPNAME which unambigiously states "Explicit use of a name or url of a company, group or product as a username is not permitted." WP:CORPNAME takes no account of the intention of the user, and makes no allowance for innocent user's hurt feelings. I personally feel that this policy is too harsh - but still, it is the current policy of the English Wikipedia. I do not believe that the account creation team is entitled to override that policy. I would like to suggest that the wording should be changed back to match WP:CORPNAME. No one has the privilege of creating usernames which breach WP:U regardless of ACC documentation, practice, or status.

As an aside, I notice that two ACC users were recently suspended for declining to create usernames which matched company names. In so declining, those ACC users were obeying not only WP:CORPNAME but the wording of this guide as it was written at the time. I can't imagine any other area of wikipedia where users would be subject to sanctions in such a case, and not at least have the option of appealing to a neutral administrator. I do not believe "zero tolerance" is a fair or proper disciplinary approach for ACC. Thparkth (talk) 03:44, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Both users have been unsuspended and I reverted my edit to the docs. Now then sometime today I'm going to take that harsh part of CORPNAME to the relevant talk page. FunPika 11:28, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I hope I didn't come across as over-critical, which I can tend to do at 1am ;) Honestly it's the policy I disagree with, not what you wrote. Thparkth (talk) 11:39, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

No other part of Wikipedia (except OTRS) deals with *potential* editors in quite the same way. ACC is in a rather unique position, especially given the private data and the irreversibleness of email. As the number of new users who stay is declining, confusing newcomers with incorrectness is not acceptable. While the odd mistake here and there is to be expected, I tend to give a bit of leeway if the mistake is either a) quickly rectified in a short space of time, or b) the mistake is not critical, and can be recovered from. As the (essentially) very first community interaction that new users have, sending them away with an incorrect message saying "NO" is not the way to encourage these new users on to Wikipedia, ESPECIALLY since users are (usually) sent to ACC when they couldn't make an account themselves (à cause de Extension:AntiSpoof ou Extension:ConfirmEdit, sometimes rangeblocks). (I need to go now, but I plan on commenting further in a while...) Stwalkerster [ talk ] 17:37, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

It would be possible to have a discussion about whether "zero tolerance" is appropriate if the ACC procedures were entirely agreed-upon and well documented. Since they aren't, it shouldn't even be up for consideration. Thparkth (talk) 17:41, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The reason it was considered in the first place was because people were making no reference to what documentation existed in the first place anyway. The intent was to get people to think twice before actually hitting a random button. At least now we have some standard of sense in how requests are handled. Like I said, it's not entirely zero-tol anyway. Stwalkerster [ talk ] 18:29, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Partly as a result of this discussion, consensus has recently been arrived at for a change to the username policy WP:ORGNAME. The policy now only prohibits "unambiguous" use of a company name. This is intended to provide greater discretion for admins and ACC volunteers when enforcing the policy. Someone attempting to register as "Apple™IncCustomerService" is pretty unambiguously intending to represent a company and would not be allowed. Someone attempting to register as merely "Apple" would be given the benefit of the doubt, unless their editing behavior suggested a problem. The implication for ACC, is that if there is a user XYZ with a hotmail address registering from Sweden, and an XYZ Corp in Australia, ACC volunteers can use their good judgement and decide that the user is not "unambiguously" using a company name. So the account can be created. I think everyone would agree that this is a victory for common sense. Thparkth (talk) 11:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Account requests through a proxy

This is in regard to the account creation interface on the toolserver. Today, I came across an account request that was made via a proxy, which I have never seen before, so I dropped the request. Neither the original IP nor the proxy IP had any contributions and both of them had clean block logs. I saw that another more experienced user had reserved and then dropped the request some time earlier. I know that in general, we should create accounts for users unless there is a reason not to. I was wondering if it's the same for requests through proxies. Should we be overly concerned if a request came though a proxy? Thanks. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 03:57, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

admins

I'm an enWP admin, & I understand I am therefore automatically entitled to use this, and have the necessary permission bit already. But what do I need to do to get a password? (What I plan to use it for is in setting up accounts for students in the Ambassador's program, to avoid the 6 account no. limitation per i.p. address) DGG ( talk ) 19:38, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

As an enWP sysop you are not constricted by the six accounts per day limit (which accountcreator overrides). If you want to join ACC to help the team create accounts then yes, you need to request an account on the ACC tool interface. Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 20:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Request

Hi, I requested an account on the interface over 10 days ago and nobody has gotten back to me. What should I do? Thanks. Magister Scienta^talk (Editor Review) 00:07, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I left a note for one of the ACC Tool Admins. Best regards - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 02:31, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, very much appreciated. Magister Scienta^talk (Editor Review) 03:35, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done Mlpearc powwow 03:47, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Help please

Hello, any assistance in explaining this would be very helpful. Recently, I reserved a request and later decided that the user name (Kuntrydude) was appropriate. After clicking the Create! link, I clicked the by email button in the account creation form but the page reloaded and said the username was blacklisted because WP policy prohibits promotional, disruptive, etc. usernames. Yet the username wasn't any of those things, I broke the reservation after realizing that I wasn't suited to deal with this instance. I guess my question is, well, what happened and how should I deal with it in the future? Thanks for anything you can tell me. Magister Scienta^talk (Editor Review) 20:41, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

If you are unable to create the account, you can click Defer to flagged users. Of course, this is when you feel the account should be created. If you think the account should be denied, you can deny the request. In this particular case, the system blocked the creation of the account because of the Title blacklist, specifically the Kunt in Kuntrydude. The system though it was a bad word, so prevented the account's creation. Best regards. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 22:10, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I see, is there any way to get around that system feature (like when I know's its an error)? Thanks. Magister Scienta^talk (Editor Review) 00:53, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you can become an Account Creator (a.k.a. Flagged user see here for more details). This allows one to override the Title blacklist. All the best. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 19:17, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Magister Scienta^talk (Editor Review) 20:44, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, one other thing. I'd like to change my email address that is currently used when I create new accounts, how do I do this? Thanks as always. Magister Scienta^talk (Editor Review) 01:21, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't know for sure. I believe the ACC software uses the email in your preferences on Wikipedia (see Special:Preferences), but I don't know that for certain. I guess we'd have to ask the people that wrote the ACC tool interface software, but I have no idea who that is. I would suggest contacting one of the ACC tool admins listed here or one of the tool roots mentioned here. Best regards. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 03:43, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Magister Scienta^talk (Editor Review) 04:45, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

What email address you are talking about? When you create a new account, the mail which is sent to the user is from the toolserver with a wikipedia/wikimedia.org address. If you want to ask/discuss anything, or reply on issues raised on the mailinglist (by the way: did you subscribe it? if not change it!) are with your private email address you were using. The wikimedia email address has more or less nothing to do with ACC. Regards, mabdul 11:32, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

So why does one have to supply an email address when requesting access to the interface? Cheers, Magister Scienta^talk (Editor Review) 22:15, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

How should he/she get a password(reset) or a decline for a requested account? (this shouldn't always be discussed public onwiki) mabdul 01:33, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Discussion regarding Interface Administrators...

• Here. Wifione ^Message 22:00, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Please note, after a further note at Wikipedia talk:Account creator#Updating policy per my note at Village pump, the account creator flag granting procedure has been updated. Even those interface administrators who are not Wikipedia administrators can approve or disapprove of the addition of the account creator flag to any user account - though the actual flag addition has to be finally done only by a Wikipedia administrator, the decision of any Interface Administrator in this regard will be considered equivalent to the decision of any Wikipedia administrator. Wifione ^Message 16:04, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Question

I know you have to verify yourself to the WMF but how old do you have to be? Also - what talk page is the revisionid of? ~ ⇒TomTomN00 @ 21:38, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

As explained here, you must be both over 18 and over the age of majority in your country to identify to the Foundation. Mato (talk) 22:18, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

It's whatever page you're confirming you're the same user on, i.e. this. — Bility (talk) 22:41, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay (forever to go). ~ ⇒TomTomN00 @ 22:50, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Identification

Hello, I feel that the need to be 18+ for identification should be challenged. I have parental consent, and I handle personal information for my 400+ member clan, the CoD Wiki, my own personal servers, and my own websites. I see no reason that younger site users should be discriminated against, even though personal information is disclosed, for someone to apply to handle this information, they had to be mature enough to even consider going through the rigorous process of AAC rights obtainment. Please let me know what you think of this. THX, Ax1om77 05:08, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest you try editing the wiki a bit before you start collecting hats and run things like this by your mentor first. If I'm not mistaken the age rule is from the WMF, so you'd have to petition them, not Wikipedia. — Bility (talk) 15:34, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Bility on the first part, and this is a legal issue with this because of the sensitive information give to people on ACC. This decision was by order of the Wikimedia Foundation, so no local consensus has the authority to make this change. It has already faced much opposition, but frankly, one more user not liking it won't change the outcome of a legal issue. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 17:56, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Qualifications for using the interface

Can I suggest that the "Qualifications" information should be above "Registering for use" information as some users request first and then realize they do not meet one of the requirements like amount of edits, or age of account. Also, I have two accounts and created this one without remembering I already had an account. Can I use the registration date of my first account?

Cheers,
Riley Huntley _talk No talkback needed; I'll temporarily watch here. 20:11, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Question

Do accounts created by ACC count as socks? M'encarta (talk) 20:22, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

ACC is merely a means by which a third party can create an account for someone who had trouble doing it themself (like WP:AfC is to WP:NP). It's contingent on all the same en-wp policies - therefore, accounts via ACC are only socks if they're used illegitimately. NTox · talk 22:49, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Problem requesting access

I had requested access to the tools for account creation some time ago, but was declined given my lack of experience. I would like to request access to the tools again, but when I try to register on the toolserver, it says my user name is already taken since I had already used it when I registered the first time. I also cannot log in with any previous information so I'm unsure how to request access to the tools again. Topher385 (talk) 19:54, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I cannot personally comment on whether or not you are newly qualified, but on the technical issue: have you tried recovering your interface password by using the forgotpw form? NTox · talk 20:02, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I did try that, but when I attempt to log in with the new password, it tells me that the user account is not identified. So, it seems to be sending me in a bit of a circle. Topher385 (talk) 20:11, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

By getting that message, you are in fact logged into your account. As I understand it, requests for access via the interface itself can only be (technically) submitted at the moment that you actually create your account - and since you already created your account some time ago, you would need to send any further requests for access to accounts-enwiki-llists.wikimedia.org, where an interface administrator will look at it. NTox · talk 20:31, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Before writing the mail, please follow the steps at meta (link on the guide page) and get identified by the WMF. Since ~April all account creators need to be identified by the WMF that you had reached the age of majority in your country! mabdul 21:09, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Wave of account requests from Namibia

Dear ACC team, this is an attempt to reach active account creators for a notice:

As from September 3, Polytechnic of Namibia will run its Information Competence course again, with approximately 800-900 users joining over the course of two weeks. I will ask them to identify themselves to you as belonging to Polytechnic of Namibia. The IP ranges affected are 196.*.*.* and 41.*.*.*. Please assist our students as in previous years. If you have any questions, please contact me on my talk page. Feel free to cross-post if this is the wrong venue for my announcement. Thanks, Pgallert (talk) 13:56, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello Pgallert, I will put a mailing list message out and place an interface notice regarding it. If you could drop me an email with an idea for a small keyword (like a code) that users could put in the comment so we know it's from your venue, that would be great. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 19:10, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Register

On registration page ,I dont understand "Confirmation diff revid (Details)" exactly.---zeeyanketu ^{talk to me} 20:10, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I appologise for the great delay in replying to you. We ask that you leave a note on your talk page confirming it is indeed you who are wishing to join. After saving that edit you would use the "Permanent Link (to this revision of the page", which you can get from the menu (its in monobook but i am not sure if it is shown in vector) or the page history, and paste that in the "Confirmation diff revid (Details)" field. The link would look something like this one from my talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Deliriousandlost&oldid=535914059 but the content of the edit would of course be just you having written something like 'this is to confirm it is me applying to join ACC'. The reason for this is to ensure someone else isn't trying to join ACC using your user name. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 03:17, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Template for creating similar username

Their might be value in creating a template to send when creating a useraccount when the username is nearly identical to an existing account - except for casing differences. Ideally this template would be very similar to the existing "create" template, however it would also include a reminder that their username is case sensitive. Since it many environments (but not all) the username is not case sensitive, I could see users running into problems logging on because they are using the wrong username casing. Thoughts? Tiggerjay (talk) 21:58, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

ACC needs help!

Hello everyone, I'm DeltaQuad (also known as DQ), an account creation interface administrator and developer. Recently, our project has had an increased backlog in getting accounts for new users. Our numbers are currently above 250 people waiting for accounts on the English Wikipedia. If you could even spare a moment to do a few requests a day to help us clear this backlog. If this interests you and your willing to help, and you match the following description, then please do apply! Ideal users are:

• Identified to the Wikimedia Foundation
• In good standing with no recent blocks
• Understand and being able to apply the username policy
• Have worked with new contributors
• Have a good at dealing with a situation even while in a dispute
• The full list of requirements

We have a very friendly team to help you get started and we also have an IRC channel. If you have any questions for us or about the process, feel free to ask at the talkpage. If you can help out, we would greatly appreciate it. For the ACC Administration and Development Team, -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 23:20, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Account creator permission usage

Hello everyone, I have started a discussion at WT:PERM regarding the use and assignment of the account creator flag. I thought I would let the people affected by this know. -- DQ on the road (ʞlɐʇ) 01:31, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

New account creation interface

Hey all,

If you check WP:VPT or the Wikimedia blog ([2]), you might have noticed that right now we're in soft-launch mode for the upcoming redesign of account creation and login. Along with this, we're trying to make some small enhancements to the interface for account creators (i.e. anyone viewing the form while already logged in). If you try the new form you'll see that we've added some community stats to the page. Do you think we should remove this for the already logged in view that you all use so much? I am on the fence. On the one hand, it seems like it's the kind of content specifically directed at normal signups, but on the other hand removing it adds a lot of whitespace to the form. Thanks for any feedback, Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 22:18, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

It looks good, doesn't hurt to have the stats. Eventually you won't even notice them. — Bility (talk) 23:03, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay, well if they end up being annoying to folks, just let me know or file a bug and we'll take care of it. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 19:19, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Real names relating to famous, popular, etc. persons

At WP:ACCG § Real names relating to famous, popular, etc. persons, it starts:

"Where the requested username is a real name relating to famous, popular, etc. persons (the standard in the username policy is that it the name or nickname has to relate to a "specific, identifiable" person); it needs to be verified"

The first clause seems to apply to only people that are famous, well-known, etc. The parenthetical phrase that follows, though, applies to almost anyone, since it doesn't say who it is that is supposed to be able to identify them (i.e. their mother would be good enough).

Assuming the first clause correctly describes the policy, can we do something about the ambiguity introduced by the parenthetical phrase? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 11:45, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Underscores in usernames in the new interface

The new ACC interface shows underscores in lieu of spaces in usernames. I recognize that this is how they are encoded in some places (like URLs), but the standard when showing them to users elsewhere in WP is to show spaces, not underscores. Also, some of the links (like the WP mainspace search and account creation) do the wrong thing, plugging the underscore version of the username into the called form. I hope the account creation form does the right thing when it creates the account —[AlanM1(talk)]— 11:53, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

There shouldn't be problem with it, MediaWiki recognises a space and underscore as the same thing, which is why Wikipedia:Request an account/Guide and Wikipedia:Request_an_account/Guide both work. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:00, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Question

I have a question, this is about what it says in the guide it says that you must be identified with Wikimedia Foundation. Okay I get the reasoning for that. But here is what I have a question on when you go to the tool interface to request access to the ACC tool, it says you just need the revision id for your talk page where you request the account. It doesn't ask anything about identifying to Wikimedia Foundation. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 22:35, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Also if I understand correctly, you don't need to have the Account Creator bit to be able to work on the Account Creator tool correct? --Clarkcj12 (talk) 22:36, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, The identification check to the foundation is done prior to granting access to the tool. You don't need to be an account creator to work with the toolserver tool. You may get the right after doing some work there however. John F. Lewis (talk) 22:38, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The account creator bit is usually given after you become active with the tool, and is managed reasonably separately. Tool access is only given to identified users, the wording on the interface is way less than clear but there is a restriction there. [stwalkerster|talk] 22:39, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay, so I have to identify to the Foundation first, then what about that revision id on talk page, Are they talking about when you identify to the foundation? Or like on your user talk page on Wikipeida? I would also suggest a tool admin/developer make the requesting access to the tool on the interface a bit clearer. :) --Clarkcj12 (talk) 22:44, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

This make sense?

1. Check you meet the requirements in the Guide
2. Identify to the Wikimedia Foundation
3. Make an edit to your userspace saying you're requesting access to the ACC tool in the edit or edit summary somehow.
4. Get the revision ID of the edit, and put that in the Confirmation diff revid box.
5. Finish off the form and register, then wait for approval

We use 2 to cover our arses (and the WMF's arse) from legal crap. We use 3/4 to make sure you are the user you say you are on the form, and the user who appears on the ID noticeboard. [stwalkerster|talk] 22:52, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it makes sense thank you. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 22:57, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Request an account process needs help

Hello everyone, I'm Callanecc, an administrator on account creation interface. Recently, our project has had an increased backlog in getting accounts for new users. Our numbers are currently over 250 people waiting for accounts on the English Wikipedia. If you could even spare a moment to do a few requests a day to help us clear this backlog, that would go a long way to encouraging new editors to participate with an account. If this interests you and you're willing to help, and you match the following description, then please do apply! Ideal users are:

• Identified to the Wikimedia Foundation or are willing and able to identify
• In good standing with no recent blocks or other sanctions
• Understand and are able to apply the username policy
• Have worked with new contributors
• Keep personal information confidential
• Please see the full list of requirements for more information

We have a very friendly team to help you get started, we also have a private IRC channel where you can ask questions or get help with difficult account requests. If you have any questions for us or about the process, feel free to ask at the talkpage. If you can help out, we would greatly appreciate it. For the ACC team,

Proposed simplicity changes to the IP Block section of the guide

See here for what I've proposed to change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oshwah (talk • contribs)

Uh...hello?

Anyone around? I heard about the backlog and am willing to assist. Just need my account (Swarm) reactivated! Can't seem to find out how to get in touch with an active tool admin though. If there's no tool admins around, can someone point me to one? Thanks. Swarm ^X 05:45, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

@Swarm: Thank you for the offer but, access to the interface now requires identification unless you're here under a different name. Mlpearc (open channel) 06:07, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply! I did see that, didn't recall but assumed I identified when I originally signed up, but I guess it just wasn't a prerequisite back then. No worries, though! If I ever get around to identifying I'll be sure to check in again here again. As an aside, I wonder why ACC is so overwhelmed to begin with? Has the account request feature become that much more popular? Or has participation decreased? I remember a backlog being unthinkable back when I was involved in ACC. Whenever a request came in, everyone had to race to be the first one to reserve it. That was probably 5 years ago, I wonder what's changed in the past few years? I was shocked when I found out there even was a backlog, much less for the past couple of years. Swarm ^X 08:01, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanked you before I answered :P I think the backlog is due to both, requests seems to come in a little faster (than 5 years ago) and the active crew is smaller. I remember the "races" the ongoing joke back then was "ACC is not a race but, reserving can be". If you do identify give us a poke, be glad to have ya back. Cheers, Mlpearc (open channel) 08:15, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Mlpearc! Until then, keep up the good work! Swarm ^X 18:32, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Request an account process needs help

Hello all. I'm DocTree, a member of the English Wikipedia Account Creation Team (ACC). As of April 2015 our project has a persistent backlog in creating accounts for new users. Over 100 people are waiting up to a week for an account on the English Wikipedia. If you can spare some time to do a few requests a day, you can help us clear the current backlog and then keep the wait for an account to a day or less.

ACC helps people who are unable to self-create a user account. Some may be sight impaired, others are collateral damage caused by blocks of shared IPs. We use the Account Creation Interface, usually just called the Tool, to screen out attempts to create inappropriate accounts. If this interests you and you're willing to help, and you match the following description, then please do apply per the procedure at Registering. Ideal candidates:

• Are Identified to the Wikimedia Foundation
• Are experienced, knowledgeable and in good standing with no recent blocks
• Know and are able to apply the username policy
• Have worked with new contributors
• Have a good record of civil behavior even while in a dispute

The full list of requirements is here.

We have a very friendly team to help you get started and we have an IRC channel. If you have any questions for us or about the process, feel free to ask at the talkpage. If you can help, we would greatly appreciate it. For the ACC Team, DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) WER 15:09, 21 April 2015 (UTC)