Wikipedia talk:Request an account/Guide/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Similar username guidelines

I want to thank Oshwah for his bold work to clarify and update the Guide. If we ever get the backlog knocked down to where we're responding to requesters in less than a day, I'll join you. But right now I'm concerned about the wording about similar usernames. The original workding fewer than the sum of about fifteen global edits was intentionally vague. ACC volunteers are expected to use discretion in deciding close calls. The new wording creates brightlines that are neither intended or appropriate. ACC volunteers must follow Wikipedia policy for similar usernames as stated at WP:IMPERSONATOR. Pertinent text includes:

Usernames that are very similar to existing ones cannot be registered normally – but if you do want to use one, you may request its creation at Wikipedia:Request an account. Usernames that are similar only to unused or inactive accounts should not be a problem. The program that checks for similarity is a bit over-sensitive—if the username is different enough as to prevent other people from confusing the two users, the request should be approved.

The first issue for a sysop or flagged user is to judge if the names are too similar. Just because the anti-spoof prevents automatic creation doesn't mean that the names are too similar. Anti-spoof will say that Alas is too similar to Al45 even though they are quite different in appearance and confusion is very unlikely. We should approve and override the anti-spoof. AlASS appears a lot more similar to Al455 and there may be other issues. The Guide already says, "If the exact wording of the documentation prevents you from creating an account that you feel should be created, ignore it and leave a comment explaining why." Don't automatically decline as Too similar just because anti-spoof put the request into the Flagged user needed queue and an existing account made over 15 edits. Fifteen edits is a guideline, not a brightline that should never be crossed.

Flagged users should be encouraged to exercise discretion in judging whether an existing account is active. I strongly disagree with the current wording, "If the similar account has made fifteen (15) or more contributions to the English Wikipedia: The similar existing account is considered active regardless of the date of the account's creation, last contribution, or log entry." To me, it isn't reasonable to consider an account active just because 17 edits were made even though the last edit was made in 2006 on the day after the account was created. I approved several requests where the existing account had made many more than 15 edits. I check edits and find that many were to userspace or were just typo corrections and such with little or no interaction with other editors.

Conversely, I declined a request as too similar even though the existing account had made only 13 or 14 edits. When I looked at the existing 5-year old account's contrib's, I saw a couple of years of inactivity after the account was created. Then the existing user made a 4,000+ character edit to create a substantial article in mainspace and several more big edits to expand and improve that article plus uploading an image to Commons. I checked the article and it was still being actively edited by the community and the image was still in the article even though the existing user was again dormant. Two years later, there was another spurt of activity, another substantial article created and improved. He had been inactive for just barely a year when a nearly identical username was requested. I declined, considering the existing account active even though he hadn't reached the 15 global edits line.

ACC volunteers add the human element, using discretion in applying the guidelines. An example (using made-up names to protect privacy) is a very close match that I approved. A request from XavierApplington was identified as too similar to existing XavierApplingson. Applingson was very active with hundreds of edits, dozens within the current year. But Applington was from X.Applington@someuniversityy.edu and commented that he wanted to join the WP:Education program, mentioned another professor already active there plus an ambassador. Google confirmed a prof at the university by that name. Checking contrib's of the existing account, I judged that interaction and confusion was unlikely. Custom close with a request that the new user comply with the last sentence at WP:IMPERSONATOR. An ambassador helped the prof comply to prevent confusion but the two active editors work at very different parts of Wikipedia. The prof's edits are mostly to Ed Program course pages and student talk pages. The older account concentrates on a particular subject area. No confusion, no violation of policy. Good judgement? I hope so.

As I find time, I plan to incrementally make changes to this part of the guide. I won't make a big change all at once so anyone who thinks a change goes too far can revert and then discuss. I ask that others weigh in on this. Do we want strict guidelines with brightlines in this section? Or do we want ACC volunteers making judgements and using discretion? Take care, DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) WER 16:52, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I think guidelines are good, but making then strict guidelines (i.e. if you break them, you can get suspended) would remove any discretion that we can give and remove the human element of the tool. I never agreed with the "if the user has 15 edits" deal, seeing as how a few requests I've seen the user has not edited since 2006, but I assumed that I could get in trouble if i accepted the request. Now, we should have some guidelines that are strict, but making them all strict guidelines would not do us any good. TheMesquito^buzz 17:03, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree. While I can see the intent of the 15 edit count, at the end of the day it comes down to common sense and the rigid fluidity that is Wikipedia. A potential rewrite could be: "If the similar account has made fifteen (15) or more meaningful contributions to the English Wikipedia." What's meaningful? That's where discretion comes in. What if the 16+ edit user is a vandal account that has no realistic chance to return, but the similar user has an interest / need for the similar name for whatever reason? What if the vandal user was banned years ago? Likelihood of confusion....aside from old-timers who may or may not remember the vandal user, little to none. I hesitate to add a timeframe qualifier to it as well, because we all know that a lot of good editors come and go and return back again over the years. RegistryKey^(RegEdit) 21:53, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to stress that we shouldn't restrict to 15 meaningful edits either. What if the account hasn't edited in over 5 years. I'd say 30, 40 even, 100 edits can be overlooked with that kind of long absence. That doesn't of course mean I created accounts when there is a similar one with 100 edits, but I have bent the rule in cases where there were up to 25 edits but that account was inactive for a very long time.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 14:32, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

So, I'm going to comment generally on the entire guide, not just the similar accounts bit.

Firstly, it is what it's called - a guide. A lot of the things in the guide are guidelines, some are (as DocTree says) bright lines. The intention of the guide was originally to introduce people to the tool, give them an idea of what things should be closed under what reasons, what should and shouldn't be created. Over time, the guidelines and rules in the guide have been strongly or weakly enforced, dependent on who's looking at what's happening and as the tool, Wikipedia/WMF policy and the community evolve. I'm glad that in most cases, the guide provides a good answer for the common cases that we see (I'm a bit out of date, but I'm assuming based on what it used to be). Most of the rules that are in there are related to situations where we are forced to interfere where we wouldn't normally (blocks, sockpuppetry), or required by legal (privacy policy).

Secondly, even when we've had strict ("zero"-tolerance) enforcement of the guide, this was intended not to make everyone follow the guide, but to make people think - there were far too many cases at the time of incorrect responses to requests - we've had the "IAR" rule in for years (if you disagree with the guide's general provisions for a specific case, ignore it and leave a comment explaining).

I do think the guide has become too strongly worded, as it makes a lot of the guidelines appear to have similar weighting to hard rules like being identified to the foundation and only creating similarly named accounts if it's inactive. There's too little wiggle-room that as a community we need, but at the same time I don't want to have the situation of too much wiggle room as then opinions differ as to how to handle simple requests, and we get a lot of incorrect closures again.

[stwalkerster|talk] 19:19, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi, everyone! I apologize for the delay responding to this talk page discussion. I've been very busy in my real life. I'm responding to give input as to what my changes to the ACC Guide were intended to address and what things they weren't, as well as provide my input to the problem being addressed at large. I'm hoping that this can provide some clarity, as well as provide input regarding the further improvements that should be made.

When I first read the ACC Guide from top to bottom, I believed it to be written in a "black-and-white" sort of manner on purpose; many directions and steps listed in some categories were translated from past emails and messages left by the Wikimedia Foundation Staff or from members of Arbcom, and there were warnings that referred to tough sanctions for those who didn't follow them. But I also saw that many of these directions contained unclear wording or ambiguous directions as far as "X is should be looked for", or "what to do in situation X". The main goal behind my edits were to eliminate those unclear or ambiguous directions while maintaining the guide to the manner in which it seemed to be written ("black-and-white") - so that nobody would become confused and accidentally wind up reprimanded or suspended. Perhaps this discussion was derived from an unintended consequence of my edits - the removal of the ambiguity (perhaps what was maybe left on purpose) now adds too much "black-and-white" in areas where it maybe should not be.

I agree with many others; in the end, this portion of the guide is probably best left to human judgment when "If X, then Y" doesn't seem to fit with the request. There will always be different situations where the guide points one direction, but human judgment and common sense point in the other. However, combining this section with the rest of the guide and the fact that much of it is explicit on purpose (dealing with CheckUser IP blocks or divulging non-public data being examples), these "human judgmental" portions of the guide should be made clear if it is okay to exhibit such judgment. It should be clearly stated on these sections that "Your common judgment is encouraged on borderline cases".

I also agree with others as well: There's other problems as well. The reason that I believed this guide was meant to be "black-and-white" throughout its entirety when I first read it was because of the many bold red warnings that stated, "If you mess this up, you'll be suspended". Those kinds of warnings imply, "you must follow exactly what's written below" - at least in my mind it did. Adding "It's okay to use your judgment" to this section while maintaining all of the big red warnings will discourage (or possibly scare) ACC Users away from processing these kinds of requests.

In the end, I believe that we should leave the explicit guidelines alone (15 meaningful edits, account created greater than one year ago, etc.), and add / improve the wording on them. These guidelines provide a good fallback list for "classic" similar account requests. We should then clearly state that the section is best left to your judgment for borderline requests, that the current guidelines are the baseline examples of what to abide by (15 edits, no logs for over one year, etc.), and that ACC Tool Users should leave good notes when they feel that human judgment should supersede what the guide states in their particular situation. I believe that this will address the issues discussed with the current section of the guide, and improve it in the direction that many seem to agree that it should be improved.

Please do not hesitate to modify my changes and make further improvements to them. I'll also be happy to assist others with adding to the guide should they need assistance. I hope that my input helped to provide good input, as well as provide clarity behind the intended goals behind my modifications. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:01, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

SUL Finalization Section - Marked as 'Outdated'

Hi, DerHexer. I saw that you added the {{outdated|section}} tag to the SUL Finalization section of the guide. Can you describe exactly what is outdated so I can modify the section and fix it? Thanks. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:38, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

All accounts are now unique, see [1], wm2015:Submissions/Finalizing SUL, and why we're never doing it again, etc. —DerHexer (Talk) 09:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi @DerHexer: What happens if the section is updated? Current procedure will be changed? Regards--JAaron95 ^Talk 17:49, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I think Keegan can help with the update here. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 21:42, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Need some help

Hello Everyone
I want to get registered for Account Creation Interface but I can't. I first tried to get registered here with my wiki username, email and password but my account was declined because I was not eligible for it. My Wikipeia account was not 6 months old with 1500 edits. But now I'm qualified enough to use this interface. Few weeks before I tried again to get registered at Register for tool acces but I got an error which said "That username is already in use on this system", Then I entered another email (which is now my current wiki email) and username only "Musa" instead of original "Musa Raza". And again my account was declined because my name was not added in Access to Nopublic Information Notice Borad. I followed all the steps on Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information/How to sign but my name was not added which is now added. I am qualified according to Qualification for using Interface but I can't sing up at Register for tool acces because if I try it will give an error that this username is already in use.
Now what should I do to get registered for tool acces?--Musa Talk  20:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

The "admin help" template asks for help from a Wikipedia administrator, but being a Wikipedia administrator has no connection at all with the account creation process, which is dealt with by tool administrators. Very simply, a Wikipedia administrator is no more able to help you than any other Wikipedia editor. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:36, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: How can I get help here?--Musa Talk  20:52, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't know. Before posting the message above I tried searching through the documentation about the account creation process, to see if I could find anything about how to contact a tool administrator, but I couldn't find anything. I am really sorry that I can't be more helpful. It must be really frustrating for you, as you have evidently tried everything you can think of. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:00, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

@Musa Raza: You can email the admin mailing list via the mail Id <enwiki-acc-adminsgooglegroups.com>. And the list of admins can be found here. You could message the admins on their talk pages (not all of them are active). Hope this helps. Regards—UY Scuti ^Talk 21:07, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Musa Raza: Sorry for the delay, I'm a tool Admin but, I'm not sure of the technicalities on solving your issue. I inquiring with others now, I'll post something here when we get it fixed. Mlpearc (open channel) 21:12, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

If I may chime in here. Once you register, your username will always be in the system. What you need to do is request the status of your account be switched to approved by emailing accounts-enwikilists.wikimedia.org—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 23:59, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

@Cyberpower678: Thanks for responding. Please guide me how can I request my account to be approved by email. What should I email?--Musa Talk  05:10, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Just send them an email asking for the username to be switched to approved. Since by the looks of it you know have two, pick one and ask for it to be approved. I moderate that mailing list so I will see it when you send it.—^cyberpower_{Happy Thanksgiving:Online} 13:36, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

@Cyberpower678: The email address you gave me doesn't exist.--Musa Talk  18:39, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

My mistake. It's actually accounts-enwiki-llists.wikimedia.org. Try again with that.—^cyberpower_{Happy Thanksgiving:Online} 19:38, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Adding 'how to add a portlet link' to the guide

"If you want to include a link to the interface in the tools section (boxes to the left of any page), add the following code to your Special:MyPage/common.js page."

mw.util.addPortletLink ('p-tb', 'https://accounts.wmflabs.org/acc.php', 'ACC Interface'); // Adds link to Account Creation Interface

Perhaps this should be appended to the guide in some way - it's convenient. NottNott|talk 12:13, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Changed AC -> ACC—UY Scuti ^Talk 14:33, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

So I actually go one better than this:

if (typeof(userACC) === 'undefined'){ var userACC = mw.config.get( 'wgUserName' ).replace(" ", "_"); }
$.ajax({
	url: '//accounts.wmflabs.org/api.php?action=status',
	dataType: 'xml',
	success: function(ACCstatus) {
		var requests = parseInt($(ACCstatus).find('status').attr('open'), 10);
		mw.util.addPortletLink('p-tb', '//accounts.wmflabs.org/acc.php?tplUsername=' + userACC, requests + ' requested accounts!', 'p-acc', 'Go to the Account Creation Interface');
	}
});

For those without JS knowledge, this talks to the ACC tool's API and pulls out the number of requests currently in the "Open" state for display. I stole this from Technical 13 a while back, it does look like he has a more advanced version over at User:Technical_13/SandBox/ACCHelp.js. I'd recommend reviewing the code there though before including it in your common.js since T13 is now a banned user. [stwalkerster|talk] 17:22, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

SUL Finalization close message

SUL Finalization is complete. The {{Historical}} template with an edit summary of As done as possible was added to the meta page in January 2016.[2] The 'Taken (SUL Finalization)' message was rarely appropriate during and immediately following finalization. I haven't seen a request where the close was appropriate in over a year. It is no longer needed.

Unless there are objections, I will soon delete reference to the 'Taken (SUL Finalization)' message from the Guide and disable the close message in the tool. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) WER 18:36, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. - Mlpearc (open channel) 18:44, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Project Honeypot

Would someone mind adding something to WP:ACCGUIDE#Interface documentation about the Project Honeypot button? I would, but I'm not entirely sure what PH does. — Gestrid (talk) 20:49, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Cannot find explanation in guide

I cannot find an explanation of the IP Check button. I sometimes find (under the IPQualityScore section) the Proxy field green checked, does this mean it needs to be deferred to Proxy check? or is there more to this. I'm not experienced in dealing with proxies. - FlightTime (open channel) 15:53, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

It's a fairly new button which links to one of SQL's tools. It gives an indication of things to be aware of with regards to an IP address using information from several sources. I personally wouldn't bother using it for every request, it's just a helpful source of extra data when following up if something else has caught my eye from one of the other checks. If you think there might be a proxy on an IP, then by all means defer it to the proxy queue. stwalkerster (talk) 18:13, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Yep. I'd ask not to run it on an IP unless there's a legitimate reason to think it might be an open proxy. We only get so many queries every month from our providers, and I'd hate to restrict the number of checks per user in order to keep under the limit and be fair to everyone. SQL^{Query me!} 00:48, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Ok, - FlightTime (open channel) 19:38, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Refactoring the guide to make it more friendly to prospective account creators

I'm planning on reworking the guide to make it clearer and more friendly to people who might be interested in helping out. Please feel free to help out or provide suggestions. UninvitedCompany 15:55, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Antispoof-override

See my email dated 2018-10-22 with [Discussion] in the title. I think the info there should be baked into the guide here for reminder, can someone do it for me or where to put it so I can do it? Thx. — regards, Revi 06:58, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I've added a brief section without the WP:BEANS. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:21, 4 June 2019 (UTC)