Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Request an account

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by FlightTime (talk | contribs) at 05:25, 17 April 2019 (→‎Does anyone care?: ty). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is not the page to request an account on Wikipedia.
This page is for discussion of the Request an account page and its process.
Please go back to the request an account page to read how to request an account.
This page is automatically archived by MiszaBot II. Any sections without comment in at least 18 days will be moved to the archive.

Request an account process needs help 2015

Hello everyone, I'm John F. Lewis, an administrator on Wikipedia's account creation interface. Recently, our project has had an increased backlog in getting accounts for new users. Our numbers are currently over 400 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:

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 talk page. If you can help out, we would greatly appreciate it. For the ACC team, John F. Lewis (talk) 18:02, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@John F. Lewis: Email sent to the list. Sam Walton (talk) 19:16, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Received and approved. Follow the usual instructions for mailing list and IRC access and I'll unsuspend your account now. Thanks, John F. Lewis (talk) 19:18, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a note (not suggesting any changes here), I used to be very active in WP:ACC, but that's when it was a wiki-based system. Moving to an email-based system (and presumably to a web-form-based system since) was good for privacy, but it meant a sufficient amount of extra complexity that I just gave up on the whole thing (and eventually ended up drifting away from Wikipedia, because it was my major area of admin activity). Back then, it was something simple and quick that anyone could do (both admins and non-admins were needed for technical reasons; I had a non-admin sock User:ais523 non-admin at least partly for that purpose). Nowadays, WP:ACC/G is listing a set of restrictions on account creation that are more reminiscent of RfA than anything else, and so I'm not particularly surprised that you're having problems finding people to go through the account creation system.

The process would likely be a lot less backlogged if you could find some way to reduce or remove the process creep. (In particular, I'm not entirely convinced there's even a need to see nonpublic information to be able to perform a decent chunk of account creation requests; the only reason we used to need it was to set the email address of the new account, and I can easily imagine some web-based system that could handle that without ever showing the account approver the information.) --ais523 05:46, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

The account creation form unfortunately does display the email and it is required to be passed on the form which in any sense would have it displayed in any API calls. IP information is also extremely helpful and in fact a staple for users on the tool as checking for proxies (per m:NOP) or range blocks (e.g. checkuserblocks, schoolblocks, vandalismblocks, oversight blocks and so on) allow users to gain and insight and assess accounts before going a head with creation. The information can also support in make case-by-case decisions such as someone wants the username 'Bill Thompson' and they have a wikipedia page stating they're a governor of an area, email and IP information allows the person working on the request to decide whether or not they are said person or not. John F. Lewis (talk) 19:28, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with IP/rangeblocks isn't something I'd thought of (basically because the old process required a wiki edit, and thus if you were blocked you wouldn't have been able to make a request in the first place). I assume that WP:ACC is nowadays more about letting people create an account through an IP block, than it is about overriding AntiSpoof (which is what it used to be mostly for), in which case it's sort-of turning into a second UTRS. --ais523 22:34, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
I am willing to help out with account creation if you still need help. Let me know if you think I qualify. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 03:09, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-automating removal of account creator right

Please see WT:PERM#Automating procedural removal of account creator rights — MusikAnimal talk 19:04, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template for deletion

A template relevant to this project, {{acc}}, has been nominated for deletion. The discussion can be found here. Your input is appreciated. Primefac (talk) 16:08, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note

I don't know how to better communicate this to the ACC team. ticket:2017021510019971 verifies identity for [ACC #193642]. Let me know (probably by email, since I can't go into great detail on-wiki) if you have any questions. ~ Rob13Talk 14:13, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I already mentioned this to BU Rob13 on IRC. See Wikipedia:Request an account/Guide#Real names relating to famous, popular, etc. persons for the process. In this case the request cannot be reopened, so the requester must complete a new account request with the OTRS ticket number included in the comments field. The ACC team can be emailed at accounts-enwiki-l@lists.wikimedia.org. — JJMC89 (T·C) 15:31, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Two-month backlog, reporting this as a problem to Village pump

I advocate in favor of more automation in whatever cases possible to relieve the pressure on this task. The backlog is bad, there is no reason to think things will get better, and things will likely get worse in the future. We should change something. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:02, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone care?

Sorry for the inflammatory header, I'm not meaning to attack anyone, but as someone who just re-joined ACC, I'm appalled at the situation. I thought that I could help grind down the backlog. But, after a few attempts at moderate grinding, I keep coming back the next day to see the backlog larger than before. I was actually what I thought was a fairly active account creator back in 2010, when it was hard to even reserve requests before somebody else. Since re-joining, I've already handled over half the number of requests I had handled in the first half of 2010, in only a couple of days. But it seems I'm not even making a dent in the backlog. What the hell happened? Why are there no volunteers? Have there been any efforts to fix the situation? Is it even worth trying to resolve, or should we just scrap the process? This task really isn't even difficult. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to do this job. If anything, it's grunt work. But the only people I've seen involved have been other administrators. Why isn't anyone helping us? ~Swarm~ {talk} 05:58, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Blue Rasberry's VP thread from this month is already in the archives. Before that, nobody has commented here since 2017? What is going on?? ~Swarm~ {talk} 05:59, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    One or two people can't dent in backlog, I have tried that in past and if you stop few days it's the same again. What we need is more people handling requests daily, as if anybody take a rest for few days requests stays under control. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 08:39, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm willing to handle a dozen, or two dozen, requests daily. I will sacrifice my time to make a difference, no problem. But, if it appears no one else is doing so, it's pretty demoralizing. There is little incentive for investing hours into the backlog, when it feel like you are the only one who is trying to help out. So, if the issue is as simple as a lack of volunteers, then how can we resolve this simple issue? ~Swarm~ {talk} 08:51, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe try giving access to all the admins? like we have for CU now. Daily we receive ~70-80 requests so 10-12 people should be regularly processing them in order to keep it backlog free. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 10:25, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    1997kB, since when do we give admins checkuser access? cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 21:47, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Cymru.lass, I meant like CU's are given access to tool for CU tasks, similarly if we give access to admins to help us keep it backlog free, but as Swalkersock mentioned, all of admins doesn't have meta:Access to nonpublic personal data policy signed so it is the reason we can't do this. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 03:19, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is correct. They would have to read and sign the Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information before they could be given any access to the ACC tool user interface. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 20:45, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could I ask why ACC isn't already open to every admin? Nosebagbear (talk) 14:02, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Nosebagbear, a user's user rights on-wiki aren't really involved in the user approval process here. Granted, being an admin definitely helps, but the main sticking point to blanket granting this to all admins is the requirement to sign the meta:Access to nonpublic personal data policy, and that requirement is non-negotiable amongst the community. To answer your questions Swarm, everyone started redirecting people to ACC a lot more than they did in the past. Many block templates now point here where previously they didn't, and many more people suggest it as an alternative. At the same time, interest in ACC has somewhat waned, so we have fewer active people and many more requests. Indeed, few people comment here; most discussion of process matters occurs on the mailing list, but that's fairly rare too. Discussion about specific requests is limited to the tool itself or IRC normally. stwalkerster (sock | talk) 14:25, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Stwalkersock: - cheers for explaining, I did rewrite my initial comment as I suspected there was something I was missing - though thinking about it makes sense. I can see that required signing makes sense. Personally it feels that there are more people signed on the policy than was the case, but actually getting that limited pool to work on ACC is the tricky step, I suppose. Thanks again. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:29, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, those who are legally able to sign (which, if I recall correctly, is a declaration you are 18 or age-of-majority, whichever is greater), and are willing to legally agree to it can sign - it's not a case of "only those listed can do ACC", it's actually "if you want to do ACC, you must sign". And yes, it has been said several times before that organising volunteers to work on something specific is akin to herding cats... stwalkerster (sock | talk) 14:51, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm very eager to help here, but I've been waiting for about a month now(? - bad with dates but it has been a hot minute) to get approved to use the tool. I've signed the agreement and all my ducks are in a row, but upon attempting to log in to familiarize myself with the tool, it says my application is still pending review. Pinging tool administrators that I know of for visibility: Oshwah, DeltaQuad, JJMC89. Cheers, cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 21:22, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    This is totally my fault. I had DQ do the root things and then I never approved your account. Thanks for taking care of it, DeltaQuad. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:20, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Heh I don't even remember doing the root things. Either way, I independently reviewed the request and things you'll make a good fit. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 03:24, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    DeltaQuad, JJMC89, thank you both!! I'm a little bit swamped today but I'm looking forward to getting started with the process cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 15:39, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad to see that this has been resolved. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 20:45, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Following on from what User:Stwalkerster said above, I'm a big believer that people should only be directed to a volunteer account creation service as a last resort. I've gathered a list of places where people are most commonly directed here. Only Template:Schoolblock and Template:ConsentBlock offer vaguely realistic advice. People without an account should not be told to request one, they should be told to find alternative ways to create one, if they can, even if it's at a later date. So in addition to the big bold message at the top of Wikipedia:Request an account, I think these all need tweaking somehow:

Help:I have been blocked
If you have never edited Wikipedia before and/or do not have an account, consider requesting one at Wikipedia:Request an account
MediaWiki:Cantcreateaccount-text
To request that an account be created for you, please follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Request an account
MediaWiki:Torblock-blocked
In order to edit through Tor and from IP addresses running Tor exit nodes, you will need to request an account
MediaWiki:Acct creation throttle hit
If you would like to request an account be created for you, follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Request an account.
Template:CheckUser block
If you do not have an account and wish to bypass this block, an account can be created to allow you to edit. In general, these blocks only prevent users who are not logged in from editing; once you are logged in, the block will no longer affect you in any way. Please request an account under your preferred username
Template:School block
[if] you are unable to create an account elsewhere, you can request one by following the instructions at Wikipedia:Request an account
Template:Anonblock
If you are currently blocked from creating an account, you may follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Request an account to request a username
Template:Rangeblock
If you do not currently have an account and wish to bypass this block, an account can be created to allow you to edit
Template:Rangeblocked
If you don't have an account, you can request an account

-- zzuuzz (talk) 15:44, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Zzuuzz: - while it's not ideal, in the sense of we play the cards we're dealt, I think you may be right. I would also like to add OTRS to the list - the advice given on emails should match up.
However, it's such abroad list that I'd suggest diverting this to WP:VPP, ping the individuals here and getting a proper proposal to amend the 1st step resolution for most of these going on it - rather than starting a dozen different discussions. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:50, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If someone would restore my ACC flag and reinstate my tool access, I can work on the backlog for a few weeks. (please ping me if you do) - FlightTime (open channel) 19:31, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:11, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanx (i think) :P - FlightTime (open channel) 05:24, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Request_an_account&oldid=892834081"