Wikipedia talk:Request an account/Administrators

Email usage

There is a small flaw in this procedure, that is requesting admins to email when a request is unsuccessful. I am not prepared to jeopardise my email account in this way. My solution is to post on the IPs talk page - not guaranteed but ... --Golden Wattle ^talk 05:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll do e-mail addresses if necessary for you. I have an e-mail address set up for Wikipedia only, so it's not that big a deal for me. Ral315 » 09:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I will as well - here's the template that I use when an account is taken.

Hello,

Thank you for expressing an interest in becoming a Wikipedia user!

Unfortunately, the username you requested at [diff of IP requesting it at the RAA page] - [Username requested] - is already registered.

If you wish to have an account created for you, please either create a new request with the new username request at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Request_an_account or ask me directly, at my user talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Daniel.Bryant

Cheers,

Daniel Bryant

Wikipedia administrator

Thoughts? Suggestions? I need to add a "If this wasn't you who requested this username..." bit, but don't know about the wording. Cheers, Daniel Bryant 08:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

It is time for the community to act...

This was a wrong archival, by a very member of the corrupt cabal that needs to go. I am doing exactly what he suggests, and exactly what needs to be done. This is a discussion that needs to continue, until the community asserts its rightful prerogatives. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 15:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

If you keep calling people "corrupt", I'll block you. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

But no other word fits, and it needs to be exposed. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 15:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, I ask Kmweber to prove that there is corruption here, and also to ask Kmweber how many of the tool admins [1] are not trustworthy enough to have access to the tool admin buttons, bearing in mind that the tool is used only to help users gain accounts on Wikipedia, and there is no more privacy issues than the old system had. Secondly, I ask Kmweber what is shadowy about the tool, given that

everything is logged, and anybody who is a) trusted by the tool admins, b) has enough experience on enwiki, and c) is not in trouble in any way is given access to the tool, and can see the logs. It just so happens that myself and at least'' another tool admin are reasonably against giving Kmweber access, my reason being that I just don't trust Kmweber to act in a friendly way towards potentially new users, especially given my various encounters with him on both IRC and RfA. Another tool admin feels that this tool should not be represented by somebody who has been harassing that tool admin. So, in conclusion, as far as I can tell this is a direct result of being denied access from the tool, which in my opinion is the fault to Kmweber anyway. Sorry for the rant, and apologies if I insulted anyone. :-) Stwalkerster [ talk ] 16:07, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

How is the ACC tool any different from VandalProof and all those other applications that requires approval before being used? I was declined access to many of these tools yet I never had a temper tantrum, threw my toys out of the pram and branded the whole process as 'corrupt.' —— RyanLupin • (talk) 16:32, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The fact that the ACC tool is under the control of a shadowy backdoor cabal rather than the community. It shouldn't matter whether a small, self-selected group "trusts" anyone. All that should matter is whether or not the community as a whole trusts the individual. What's so hard to understand about that? Have you not been paying attention to anything I've said all along? Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 16:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I think there are some ideas expressed above that are very much against what Wikipedia is all about, and Kurt has made this point very clearly. This is a community project, and its decisions are should be made by the community. If it is true that Kurt is not trusted, my question is: where's the link to the community discussion in which that consensus was reached? For the record, I strongly disagree with any assertion that Kurt is not to be trusted, and furthermore I am very skeptical that there is community consensus that he is not to be trusted. Frank  |  talk  17:30, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have been reading this, and to me it appears you are shifting slightly. However, let it be known that access is generally only given if, as I've said, a) they are trusted by the tool admins (which means generally if they are trustworthy enough to be given more responsibility by the community or is trusted by the community in general, also not to abuse the tool, and be nice to newcomers), b) has enough experience on enwiki (meaning at least 6 ish months, so we can confirm that the user is trustworthy), and c) is not in trouble in any way (another trust check). As I've said, I'll be more than happy to grant any user who meets these criteria access to the tool, and they can check for themselves that there is no issues surrounding this. However, as I have also said, I don't trust Kmweber to be kind, as all of my encounters with him have been, "blunt". That is why I refuse (and others have too) to give him access to the tool. I hope this clarifies things. :-) Stwalkerster [ talk ] 17:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Let me clarify further - the decision that Kurt is not to be trusted is not a community decision - it is a personal one. I don't trust him, and that comes from my personal experiences when dealing with him. Nothing more. :-) Stwalkerster [ talk ] 17:45, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

And that's the problem, but apparently you haven't been paying attention. It shouldn't be a "personal" decision. It is the Wikipedia community that should be making these decisions, not a self-selected shadowy cabal. The cabal needs to turn over control of this important Wikipedia tool to the Wikipedia community, or it should be abolished altogether. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 17:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we should close the buffet now. - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Kurt is absolutely not trolling. He has a very real and very legitimate concern regarding the toolserver. Threatening to block him is extremely uncalled for. And calling him a troll while he is being sincere is quite against..well..what you cited earlier. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 18:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

He is trolling - first it was on IRC in the #wikipeida-en-accounts channel; he was then banned from there for doing it. Now, he is repeatedly sending messages to various people saying "Why do you hate wikipeida" amongst other things. That is trolling. - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Righteous persistence is not trolling. Please try again. I was banned from there because you didn't want to have to listen to legitimate criticisms of your activities. Labelling it "trolling" is just a convenient excuse to avoid scrutiny for stifling openness. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 18:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

This will be the last comment I'm leaving here, just so you know. I'm not the one who banned you, but I fully endorse the action. - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

And that is precisely the problem. Any action on a community project with millions of editors and ~1.5 thousand administrators that happens because of one or two editors deciding to "ban" someone is not in keeping with a community-oriented project. Neither is threatening to block said editor, who is acting in good faith, and neither is the name-calling. Even if you want to attach pejorative terms to Kurt's behavior, you still have not linked to the community discussion wherein the decision regarding granting the tool (or not) to Kurt was made. I am interested in seeing the consensus for this action; that's how we do things on Wikipedia, and I would like to have participated in that discussion. I wasn't made aware of it beforehand, and I've yet to see transcripts and/or links to it after the fact.  Frank  |  talk  18:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I have explained this countless times kurt, but I will again, for everyone else's benifit.

1. Kurt requests account
2. Declined by admin
3. Kurt asks admins to review
4. All the admins vote, and a (large) majority says no

All he has to do now, is go request this be reviewed on the public account creation mailing list, and develop consensus there he should be added. Kurt refuses to do this, so he can't really complain about a 'cabal' when all he has to do is gain consensus, which is exactly the way wikipedia works. Yes, Wikipedia consensus doesn't control the server, yes, SQL could prevent anyone from using the tool he wanted, but he doesn't. So this isn't really an issue. Prodego ^talk 19:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to do that, and I don't have to do that, because that's not the way the process should work. No one's denying that that's the way it currently works; the whole point of the argument I and others are making is that it shouldn't work that way. But instead of acknowledging our concerns about how the process currently works, you simply insist that we follow the current process, which is horribly broken and is what we're trying to change. I don't know if you're simply not paying attention or what, but this is getting rather ridiculous. So I will state it, clearly, and unequivocally: I am quite aware of the way the process for getting access to the account creation tool currently works. What I am arguing is that it should not work that way, and I am trying to change it. It is my contention that the decision should be entirely and without exception in the hands of the Wikipedia community, and that the so-called "tool admins" either surrender their control to the Wikipedia community, or that this process be abolished altogether. Is that clear enough for you? Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 19:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

(e/c, but not changing my comment) OK, so what is wrong with this picture? Most other places on Wikipedia, things are done by consensus of the community. In this case, a lone "tool admin" declined the request, and then a collection of "tool admins" "discussed" (in secret) and also declined the request. As I see it, Kurt's very legitimate point is that neither of these steps should be required to do anything on Wikipedia in the first place. Furthermore, as I see it from an admittedly very cursory review of the situation (although I did opine on it previously), it looks like Kurt's stance hasn't changed. This is about policy and procedure - it is not about whether or not Kurt can have access to this tool.  Frank  |  talk  19:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

After a less-than-civil conversation with Kurt in private messages on IRC, I agree with Rjd0060 here. For the purposes of keeping a discussion going here, I would be interested to know what exactly Kmweber is proposing. Yes, I have read that control should be handed to the community, but my question is not "should it be" but "how to do that". Are you proposing a version of RfA, in which people have to go through 5 or 7 days of scrutiny and comments by the community? Or possibly that the entire thing should be shut down, preventing a number of new users from participating, making one of the most popular sites on the internet less accessible to those who want to contribute, casting Wikipedia into a darker light? Or perhaps take of the catchpa, and antispoof extensions, and remove the 6 account creations per 24 hours per IP address limit, effectively opening the door to spambots, and sockpuppeteers? The toolserver tool was originally designed to make it easier to deal with requests sent to the mailing list, which was set up to keep IP addresses/email addresses more private than they were when the ACC system was on-wiki (ie. edit a page posting your IP address (in the history), email address, and requested username). :-) Stwalkerster [ talk ] 19:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Please do not mischaracterize our conversation. I was anything but incivil, as were you. I fear you are grasping at straws here. And the specifics of how to turn this over to the community are another matter; first, the community needs to assert control over this in principle. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 19:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, I felt quite insulted by the end of it. :-) Stwalkerster [ talk ] 19:52, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

edit point

Just as a point, the banning of Kurt was from an IRC channel, and IRC is not Wikipedia. However, while I have said I disagree with Kurt getting access, yes, if the other tool admins wish to give him access, then I will go along with that. Prodego makes a good point. :-) Stwalkerster [ talk ] 19:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I refuse to sanction your illegitimate process that shows total contempt for the Wikipedia community in that manner. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 19:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's what really gets me. I could understand opposition to a particular scheme for the community determining who gets access to the account creation tool. But what I can't understand is why all you cabalists are so opposed to the idea of turning over control of this process to the Wikipedia community in principle. The only reason I can think of is that you indeed hold the community in utter contempt. That it's a "toolserver tool" is not really a good reason--there's no inherent reason why a toolserver tool shouldn't be under control of the Wikipedia communty, with the "tool admins" merely implementing its will. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 19:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I was always under the impression that it was open to the community. It's just that as far as I am aware, the community has not taken much of an interest until now, when allegations have been brought up. :-) Stwalkerster [ talk ] 19:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Way to equivocate. Yes or no question: Are you opposed, in principle, to the community asserting total and unhindered control over this process? Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 20:32, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I would love to see what the consensus actually is - if more eyes were on this discussion, I'd be inclined to take a straw poll. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 20:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to it (in principle), as I thought that that was always the case. However, I have never seen the community as a whole take interest in the ACC process, except when we forced a poll on the community for the accountcreator right, which the community agreed to. Yes in principle, but I feel that we have got along by ourselves (so to speak) for a while, so I don't feel that the community will have much interest in it now either. (I could be wrong though.) :-) Stwalkerster [ talk ] 21:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

<aside>Just a note, but reviewing the list of people on the tool server as users I see disgraced ex-admins and "problematic" users with block histories. Hmmmmm..... I'm normally opposed to Kurt on most things but I'm allways willing to listen - and here we seem to have some valid issues.</aside> Pedro :  Chat  20:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

If the tool was passed over to the community then what about all the other tools that require approval before it's use. There are dozens of new page patroller and anti-vandal tools that require a tool admin to initiate an account, are you proposing that all these applications also be transferred over to the community? —— RyanLupin • (talk) 21:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Come on, Ryan, you're not a newbie around here. That sounds a lot like WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Why should there be different procedures? Bots, admins, 'crats all require community consensus...XfDs and DRVs are community-consensus based...rollback privilege is granted by admins, who are vetted by the community...it seems logical that everything be done through the same mechanism, which has at its root the community. Yes, there might be differences in some cases but even the degree to which something ought to be an exception ought to be determined by community consensus. Which other tools are (or have their access bit) administered in this way?  Frank  |  talk  21:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

If ACC is granted like rollback, then so should access to the toolserver. Vetted by the community. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 22:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)