Last modified: 2008-05-10 05:54:57 UTC

Wikimedia Bugzilla is closed!

Wikimedia has migrated from Bugzilla to Phabricator. Bug reports should be created and updated in Wikimedia Phabricator instead. Please create an account in Phabricator and add your Bugzilla email address to it.
Wikimedia Bugzilla is read-only. If you try to edit or create any bug report in Bugzilla you will be shown an intentional error message.
In order to access the Phabricator task corresponding to a Bugzilla report, just remove "static-" from its URL.
You could still run searches in Bugzilla or access your list of votes but bug reports will obviously not be up-to-date in Bugzilla.
Bug 13498 - Request for New User Group to be created, to create account Requests.
Request for New User Group to be created, to create account Requests.
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Product: Wikimedia
Classification: Unclassified
Site requests (Other open bugs)
unspecified
All All
: Normal enhancement with 9 votes (vote)
: ---
Assigned To: Nobody - You can work on this!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedi...
: shell
Depends on: 13782
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2008-03-25 12:14 UTC by Thehelpfulone
Modified: 2008-05-10 05:54 UTC (History)
16 users (show)

See Also:
Web browser: ---
Mobile Platform: ---
Assignee Huggle Beta Tester: ---


Attachments

Description Thehelpfulone 2008-03-25 12:14:34 UTC
Per: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Request_an_account#Increasing_Limit .

We have implemented a new system for handling account requests, which offers more privacy. Therefore, we have been getting a large number of requests. Many of the helpers are non-admins, and they get stuck after 6 creations with the limit.

Therefore, we would like a new user group to be created, possible called "Account Creators", which provides users with unlimited, or near to it account creations per day.

This would mean that we would be able to complete these requests more easily, and clear the backlog that can arise.

I spoke to Tim Starling on IRC, and he asked me if this was required for other wikis too. I don't believe so, as the English Wikipedia is the only wiki which has this new system in place. 

Therefore, I would like this only for the English Wikipedia.

Thanks,

Thehelpfulone
Comment 1 Simon Walker 2008-03-25 12:19:36 UTC
I agree with this, and suggest that if unlimited account creations for those in the group are not possible, I suggest 50 as a reasonable limit.

Stwalkerster
Comment 2 Thehelpfulone 2008-03-25 12:43:35 UTC
I am wondering who should be able to give this status out to users. 

As administrators don't have this limit, I would suggest that they would be able to grant it, like they can grant rollback.

This way, it could also be kept under control, if a user starts to abuse it.

Thehelpfulone
Comment 3 X! 2008-03-27 15:08:42 UTC
Well it is possible to have unlimited throttles...

Something like this:

If user is in AccountCreators group, then $wgAccountCreationThrottle = 0
Else, $wgAccountCreationThrottle = 6.


Oh yeah, didn't I come up with the idea for this too? XD


-Endorse
Comment 4 Riana C 2008-03-28 11:37:54 UTC
Yep, I'd quite like to see a feature like this too. Admins end up answering a lot of these requests, when dedicated users could be filling them out instead. I suppose it could be like rollback, admins giving the feature to trusted users? 

- Riana
Comment 5 Prodego 2008-04-08 20:55:11 UTC
Why not just remove the throttle for all [auto-confirmed?] users?
Comment 6 Radon210 2008-04-08 21:55:35 UTC
Any vandal can easily create a couple sleeper accounts and start making hundreds of sockpuppets. A user group is better.
Comment 7 Brion Vibber 2008-04-08 23:21:39 UTC
Group should be doable.
Comment 8 SQL 2008-04-09 03:45:36 UTC
One way I get around this, is to use my flagged bot to create accounts. Apparently, flagged bots are exempt. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&limit=100&user=SQLBot
Comment 9 Simon Walker 2008-04-09 12:20:18 UTC
(In reply to comment #8)
> One way I get around this, is to use my flagged bot to create accounts.
> Apparently, flagged bots are exempt.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&limit=100&user=SQLBot

Yeah, but not everyone has a bot they can use to do that. I happen to have a flagged bot, but I don't think the majority of helpers will have one.
Comment 10 X! 2008-04-10 04:15:42 UTC
(In reply to comment #8)
> One way I get around this, is to use my flagged bot to create accounts.
> Apparently, flagged bots are exempt.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&limit=100&user=SQLBot
> 

It's also annoying to have to log in and out every time you plan on creating accounts.
Comment 11 Alex Z. 2008-04-10 04:58:27 UTC
I've also been doing some work with Aaron on adapting the ConfirmAccount extension for possible use on enwiki - options to remove things that enwiki doesn't need, if a completely on-wiki solution to the account request system would be desirable. I also have a public wiki set up if people want to test the extension: http://mrzman.x10hosting.com/wiki/Main_Page - for non-admins to use the system but sill maintain security with email addresses this would need a similar usergroup addition.
Comment 12 Cometstyles 2008-04-29 10:52:21 UTC
Could someone try to implement this bug?
Comment 13 James R. 2008-04-29 11:30:06 UTC
Looks alright, and I'm in total favour of it.
Comment 14 zocky 2008-04-29 11:34:10 UTC
Why not just make these users admins?
Comment 15 WODUP 2008-04-29 13:18:35 UTC
(In reply to comment #14)
> Why not just make these users admins?
> 

Admins aren't affected by the account creation limit, but they also bypass the anti-spoof feature. They can create any account that's not already taken and the software won't warn them that it's similar to an existing account.
Comment 16 Brion Vibber 2008-05-08 23:47:31 UTC
Added on enwiki. Please confirm it's working correctly. :)
Comment 17 Casey Brown 2008-05-08 23:55:28 UTC
(In reply to comment #16)
> Added on enwiki. Please confirm it's working correctly. :)
> 

The group exists, but I don't think administrators can set it... (as they should be able to)
Comment 18 Brion Vibber 2008-05-08 23:57:05 UTC
How about now?
Comment 19 Casey Brown 2008-05-08 23:59:29 UTC
(In reply to comment #18)
> How about now?
> 

Perfect!
Comment 20 Cometstyles 2008-05-09 00:49:32 UTC
No Limits ?
Comment 21 FunPika 2008-05-09 22:29:07 UTC
Nope, not on anything (even stuff such as moves). 
Comment 22 penubag 2008-05-10 02:40:08 UTC
(In reply to comment #14)
> Why not just make these users admins?
> 
There seems to be a whole bunch of new usergroups popping up everywhere now.
How about the idea of merging the permissions of 'rollbacker', 'accountcreator', and possibly 'Ipblock-exempt'  into one group possibly called moderator. This way if any more new permissions were to added, a whole new usergroup need not to be created but added to the moderator group.
Comment 23 WODUP 2008-05-10 03:17:35 UTC
(In reply to comment #21)
> Nope, not on anything (even stuff such as moves). 

What's the usual limit on moves?

(In reply to comment #22)
> There seems to be a whole bunch of new usergroups popping up everywhere now.
> How about the idea of merging the permissions of 'rollbacker',
> 'accountcreator', and possibly 'Ipblock-exempt'  into one group possibly called
> moderator. This way if any more new permissions were to added, a whole new
> usergroup need not to be created but added to the moderator group.

I don't know... I think that the standards of the community for someone to get the set of tools might then be too high. Of course, I tend to expect the worst. (I dread the day when users have to pass an RfTU - a Request for Trusted-Usership.) Now, if someone wants to be an accountcreator, they probably can be. No one has to think "yeah, but I don't think I trust that person with rollback... or IPblock exemption." If these permissions /were/ conglomerated, I think that the name "moderator" would create too much confusion with new users who might think "administrator" and "moderator" were the same thing. Something like "trusted" would probably be better.
Comment 24 Alex Z. 2008-05-10 05:54:57 UTC
(In reply to comment #22)
> There seems to be a whole bunch of new usergroups popping up everywhere now.
> How about the idea of merging the permissions of 'rollbacker',
> 'accountcreator', and possibly 'Ipblock-exempt'  into one group possibly called
> moderator. This way if any more new permissions were to added, a whole new
> usergroup need not to be created but added to the moderator group.
> 

Because they were all created for specific purposes. Accountcreator and ipblockexempt are given out based on whether the user needs/will use them. Accountcreator is only being given to people who are actually creating accounts for other people and ipblockexempt is only being given to people who need to edit from hardblocked IPs. Lumping them all into one group and giving it to trusted people will make it more like a status symbol than a tool. Anyway, this is getting off-topic for this bug. Further discussion about this should probably be on-wiki so we can stop spamming a dozen people by discussing this.

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.


Navigation
Links