Last modified: 2008-05-10 05:54:57 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
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
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
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
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
Why not just remove the throttle for all [auto-confirmed?] users?
Any vandal can easily create a couple sleeper accounts and start making hundreds of sockpuppets. A user group is better.
Group should be doable.
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
(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.
(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.
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.
Could someone try to implement this bug?
Looks alright, and I'm in total favour of it.
Why not just make these users admins?
(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.
Added on enwiki. Please confirm it's working correctly. :)
(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)
How about now?
(In reply to comment #18) > How about now? > Perfect!
No Limits ?
Nope, not on anything (even stuff such as moves).
(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.
(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.
(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.
