Wikipedia talk:Request an account/Archive 1

message: And I don't even mean malicious abuse. I mean well-meaning folks who haven't the slightest that Wikipedia can be edited by anyone and think you have to go through some sort of screening process in order to get an account. Given the amount of traffic this page has received since its inception, I highly doubt that every person who requested an account was unable to solve the captcha (and much less use a text-only browser.) — Edward Z. Yang(Talk) 04:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The instructions do say that the page should be used if the captcha can't be solved, so someone who posts here incorrectly will only create a bit more work, and this should not cause too many problems. Also, this page could perhaps also be used for allowing people to register a username that would normally not be permitted for being too similar to another username. Tra (Talk) 17:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potential for Abuse 

message: It would seem possible to make this list something automatically generated by the account creation procedure and display it on a '/Special:' page visible only to admins. Just capture the userid, password, and e-mail they use to try to create the account and write them out to the page if they click a 'I cannot resolve this image' button. That would require dev work, but remove all the problems of users over-writing other requests, e-mail addresses being displayed, et cetera.
Also, hasn't anyone developed a sound-based equivalent to CAPTCHA? As in, click a button to play a sound file and then type in the word spoken. That would enable most blocked users to create their own accounts. Some users/browsers would still require an account to be created for them, but it should be a tiny percentage. --CBD 13:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If a sound-based equivalent was developed, it would probably end up generating OGG files, which would require plugins to use and it would not be very user-friendly. Tra (Talk) 17:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since they're small enough, we could serve raw WAV files. — Edward Z. Yang(Talk) 21:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible changes 

message: I have just done my bit for this function.  Seems to me that many new users (as noted above) are deleting other requests when they add their own. With that level of competence, I wonder have they even tried to create their own account (or how they are going to go editing).  I also notice that for the accounts created - only one (has any contributions - is this a waste of time? --Golden Wattle  talk 01:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd argue that there are accounts who don't edit immediately (I didn't edit for a while after creating my account); also, if even one editor becomes a constructive member of the Wikipedia community, I consider that a success.  Ral315 » 19:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I scroll back through the diffs since the last administrator marked it as completed-to-that-point. Daniel Bryant 08:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's what I do as well.  Ral315 » 07:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evaluation - waste of time? 

message: All the documentation here talks about how admins can handle requests and create accounts. However, I, a normal user, have managed to follow the instructions mentioned successfully to assist in the creation of a few accounts through this page. So, is it a mistake or is there something I've missed? Tra (Talk) 00:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't; however, I've envisioned the page as aimed at mostly admins and experienced users, since it can involve e-mailing users, and most importantly, because users are only limited to 6 account creations per IP per day, and I've put in a bugzilla request to allow admins to create unlimited accounts.  Ral315 » 00:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do you need to be an admin to handle requests? 

message: Is anyone opposed to moving the instructions and whatnot to Wikipedia:Request an account/top and transcluding it so the page isn't as frightening to new users in edit mode? John Reaves (talk) 22:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's quite a good idea. Another benefit of this is that the page history of updates to the instructions is preserved, which will increase compliance with the GFDL, since Wikipedia:Request an account is deleted periodically. Tra (Talk) 23:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia:Request an account/top 

message: I've re-arranged the page so that requesters now add their request using §ion=new, which should hopefully reduce the number of users who overwrite each other's requests. Tra (Talk) 01:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A great idea.  I award you a cookie, or something.  Ral315 » 20:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-arrangement of page 

message: See Wikipedia:Request an account/T. Provides some very handy links to make things easier. Added benefit is it doesn't display emails on page (and instead adds it to the autofill link to create the account - thanks VoA for that one!). Could maybe be used to format requests, when a person is over their 6-limit quota and can't create the account straight away? Cheers, Daniel Bryant 05:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: PS: any news about the limit removal? Daniel Bryant 08:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  When we get a scap, we'll be fine; until then, we're waiting.  However, I found out that my IP is dynamic, so I should be able to get a lot of requests taken care of during the week.  Ral315 » 09:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It might be a few days before I can do this again- please, someone bug brion to scap :)  Ral315 » 21:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template, if anyone else wants to use it 

message: Moved from WP:ACC
Hello, I put my new spamless for-six-months email address on this page and within days it got spam.  I'm rather unhappy about this.  Please warn users signing up here not to put their email address in plaintext.  E.g, put the following text under item 2:
DO NOT enter it in plain form (e.g. "foo@bar.com"); it WILL be picked up by spammers.  Instead enter something like "foo_removeThis_@bar.com" or "foo (a t) bar d o t com".
Thank you.
:I've added a note to the yellow box recommending that people use disposable e-mail addresses. Tra (Talk) 18:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dunno if that's doable (i.e. if people will understand the directions), but we could ask them to "cut" their e-mail address in 2 parts username and domain, for example foo@bar.com would be email1=foo|email2=bar.com. Hopefully that would make things harder for spambots. -- lucasbfr talk 11:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spam 

message: We really need a bot to tend this page and add completed requests to the archive. This is becoming quite a disaster. I'm posting over on Wikipedia:Bot requests, but I'd encourage anyone with bot experience to consider coding up a solution. Thanks! alphachimp 18:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's probably easier said than done. For one thing, since this page is aimed at new users, a lot of them do not fill out the form correctly, which can confuse the bot. Also, when the bot completes requests, it would be limited to 6 accounts per IP address, which would slow it down. There's also the problem of dealing with all of the captchas. I think what's mainly needed is just more people handling requests. Tra (Talk) 18:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to simplify the form a little. Honestly, I don't think it'd be too hard. The bot just has to check whether the account exists. If it exists when the request is posted, the request will be marked as bad. If it exists anytime after 5 minutes after the request and is shown as created by another user, it'd move the request to the archive. This is mostly a solution to ease the archiving process. alphachimp 19:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bot Desperately Needed 

message: Hi, I've recently posted a request for an account and it appears to have been created. The username requested was "Ab.er.rant". I have received an email requesting that I confirm the account registration by clicking on the link (which I did). The link does not auto-login so I stumped as to what the password for my account is (and no, the password wasn't mentioned in the email. Am I supposed to wait for a second email? Thanks. 58.71.154.194 06:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I might have done that one wrong, you should receive another e-mail with a temporary password shortly. John Reaves (talk) 07:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Got it! Thanks! Ab.er.rant 08:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Am I missing something? 

message: i m not able to find topic on pneumatic coneying
:That might be quite a specific topic. You could try asking for the information you're looking for at the Reference desk. Tra (Talk) 23:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  on pneumatic conveying 

message: Would anybody be opposed to the bot adding a welcome template to the user talk pages of the accounts we create?  I've contacted ST47 who has said it's possible, there just needs to be consensus first. John Reaves (talk) 17:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really see a problem with it, but there does seem to be consensus against mass-bot welcoming over on Wikipedia:Bot requests. I don't really think this falls into the same category, but it's possible that someone could make a slippery slope argument against it. Anyway, I'd support such a proposal. alphachimp 18:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bot welcoming 

message: How are users supposed to ever find out that the name they selected already exists and that they need to select a new one when the bot removes the request with no notifacation? John Reaves (talk) 21:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The bot e-mails the requester to tell them that the account has already been taken. Tra (Talk) 21:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah. John Reaves (talk) 21:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Already exists 

message: I will be on vacation this weekend and will not have access to a linux machine. That means that several bots will be down, including this one. If anyone has a computer running linux, I can provide them with a stand-alone binary that can run until I return - contact me on my talk page and I can email it to you. ST47Talk 14:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Betacommend has it on his toolserv account for the weekend. ST47Talk 21:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bot may be down for some time... 

message: I added a note about e-mail being required in the preload.  I say we simply refuse requests without e-mails or at least only wait a few days before removing them. John Reaves (talk) 17:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No e-mail 

message: Howdy.  Was thinking the first instruction point could be better worded as "1. Read the details below and then click this link." as some people may just click the link then read the instructions after submitting the request, but wanted to see what others thought rather than changing it myself.
The last point "4. ... too similar to another account..." could probably be reworded too (seems a little awkward, but I can't come up with a better wording myself) and perhaps note that if the username is too close to an active account name it will be rejected? Zarius 08:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction - minor rewording? 

message: I can run this bot on the toolserver, but due to weird things, I cannot send email. I won't have access to this computer for about a week starting this coming friday, should I change it to not remove accounts that already exist, since we can't email them? ST47Talk 12:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, you would probably need to comment that bit out temporarily whilst e-mail's down, so that the requests are still visible for people to contact them. Tra (Talk) 22:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bot email issues

message: Do you think it would be a good idea to use templates like  for requests that have no e-mail or are requesting an account that already exists. This might reduce confusion and help clarify to the requester that their request cannot be carried out, since at the moment, they might mistake seeing 'similar to...' comments as rejecting the request. Tra (Talk) 22:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's an idea being suggested for a new template to use on this page at User talk:Tra#Declining WP:ACC requests. What does everyone think? Tra (Talk) 18:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's the new template: . Tra (Talk) 22:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was going to suggest something similar to  too, but I guess I forgot.  Great job. John Reaves (talk) 22:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, that's so helpful! I added an  option so that requests can be closed off before the bot gets to them, and now the backlog's down to 0. Now all we need is something to do with denied requests (at the moment they just sit there forever, as far as I can tell). --ais523 08:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since I added "requests without e-mails will be rejected", I've been deleting requests without e-mails after a few days. John Reaves (talk) 08:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What about deleting anything tagged with  (other than the 's' reason) after a few days (say 3)? (That could be implemented by bot quite easily.) --ais523 09:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds like a good idea. And thank you Tra for the very helpful template! jwillburtalk 18:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Those tagged with ACC with anything other than s - should they simply be removed after 3 days, or archived somewhere? ST47Talk 21:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, they'll just need to be removed, so that people's e-mail and IP addresses are not available to spammers. Tra (Talk) 11:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New template 

message: I just deleted and restored this page, causing some unavoidable server difficulties. Please start removing the history of this page another way. Simply move this page to another page (I used Wikipedia:Request an account/Deleted1) and then delete that page. You can restore the original content from Wikipedia:Request an account as soon as you're done. alphachimp 07:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When removing the page history, you should copy the page content, delete the page, then recreate the page using the data that was copied earlier. This is a really simple way to do it. Extranet is now  E talk 10:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, because deleting page with a large history can take many minutes.  It's best to have the page back up as soon as possible. -- John Reaves (talk) 08:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page Deletions 

message: I would like to use chrisworld since i use that name for everything but "ChrisWorld" username prevents me from doing so, sho steals names from other people, honestly, ive been using chrisworld forever. - 69.248.175.25 19:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can provide an e-mail address, you can request that the account  is created by an admin (who can get round the similar usernames restriction) by following the instructions at Wikipedia:Request an account. Please note however, that the first letter of the username will automatically be capitalised. Tra (Talk) 20:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chrisworld 

message: What happens if somebody would like the username of another account who has never contributed and who hasn't supplied an email address? For instance, I would like the account name Sodo, but it has been registered without an email address and has not contributed at all. 72.223.123.144 12:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please, create another user account first. It is more convenient than talking to an IP address. A later renaming can probably be arranged. --Tone 13:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion of an inactive account? 

message: I requested a account . A bot removed the section with this edit, saying the request was "done". 
I've checked the userlist and the account i request has indeed been created. However, i have received no email (and yes, i've checked the "junk mail" box). 
Am i waiting for someone to send me the email with the password. Or did something go wrong. If so, can i get another email sent to me with the password? 
Thanks, --Yu-Tian Fang 10:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that the method used to create the account requires an actual e-mail address, and not a Special:Emailuser link. That would explain why you did not receive the e-mail. Unfortunately, this means that the account is now inaccessible, so your easiest option now is to request another account instead. It might be possible to recreate the account you requested if the incorrectly made account is usurped, but that might take a while and there's no guarantee that bureaucrats would be willing to perform the rename. Tra (Talk) 11:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahh, i didn't realize a bot was doing the emailing. That would explain the problem then. (Makes me wonder if a bot is doing the account creating too...). I can't really be bothered trying to get it recreated. I just wanted it to redirect the userpage, which i can do anyway. --Yu-Tian Fang 11:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, what happens is a human clicks the 'create' link for each request, which takes them to the account creation form with most of the fields filled in. They fill in the rest of the fields and click 'By e-mail' which causes the password to be sent directly from Wikipedia to the requester's e-mail account. The account creation is then logged, and the bot monitors these logs and removes the requests whenever it can see that the account has been created. In this instance, the person didn't check that the pre filled fields were filled in correctly, which would have caused this problem. Tra (Talk) 11:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Account request fillfulled but no password emailed.  

message: Hey. When I create an account, I fill in a password for the user, make sure remember me is checked, and click by e-mail. If it's able, it creates the account, but it logs me out of Wikipedia. Is there something I can do to remain logged in? WODUP 20:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Strange, that doesn't happen to me. (I leave remember me unchecked for creating other people's accounts, though; that leaves me logged in, and I can recheck it at Special:Preferences.) --ais523 10:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I created one earlier today and left remember me unchecked, and it still logged me out. I don't know why. I'll try something different each time and see what happens. WODUP 22:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Creating an account logs me out 

message: To all users who help out at WP:ACC: Today, a request was placed for the account Ala Moody. This looks just like the user names used by an abusive vandal, and the email address - ignoreallrules@walla.com - reminds me of this abusive vandal's edit summery - WP:IAR. Please be careful about such user names, as they may be an attempt to create accounts at times when he/she isn't editing. Od Mishehu 10:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please don't create accounts with abreviated [[Harry Potter]]-related names 

message: Please, help me to create my user name as: Pranavor. Thanks.    CU   --193.77.155.144 14:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Moved to WP:ACC open requests..--Cometstyles 16:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pranavor as a user name 

message: This seems to have happened recently; the username Da.n.n.y was requested, and the software rejected it due to similarity with Dan.ny (an inactive account). However, there's also the active (administrator, in fact) account User:Danny, which is also presumably too similar but which the software didn't flag up, so it seems that only one of the similarity matches is being flagged up by the software, and not necessarily the appropriate one. I doubt there's a workaround for this, but in the meantime, it would help to stay alert in similar requests. --ais523 09:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Similar to two accounts, one inactive, the other active 

message: Hello! I'd like to create an account with the name Nikkis, because in the german Wikipedia, I've the same account. But there's already a user, who calls User:NikkiS, but this user is not activ. Can you help me? 84.131.199.103 12:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An email address is needed so that we can send you the password. It's easiest if you use the link on the main page Wikipedia:Request an account, which gives you a form where you can enter the desired username and email address; this is a discussion ('talk') page, which is for discussing the account-creation process, not itself for creating accounts. --ais523 12:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Username [[Nikkis]]  

message: Hi.  I requested an account name here around 14 July.  I can't find it in the closed account names for the month and I never received a response.  I'd like to find out some feedback from my request (if it was rejected/why) but I don't know where to begin the discussion or with whom because I can't find a version of the page older than 19 July.  Any help/ideas? (Here or on my talk page).  Thanks to the perpetually helpful wikicommunity.  Much love.  Joshua Crowgey 05:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Replied at User talk:Joshua Crowgey. Tra (Talk) 21:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archives? 

message: There is a username I'm after, but it has already been registered, however there is absolutely no activity on this account.
I'm wondering if it would be possible to use this username for myself, if this is not possible I would like to know wikipedia's policy on inactive accounts, and how long it takes for them to be removed.
--211.28.212.240 17:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The process for what you're describing is at WP:CHU/U. However, they will only allow unused but taken usernames to be given to people who are already established users on Wikipedia. What I would recommend is that you choose another username to sign up with, edit with that username for a few months and later on make a request there. Tra (Talk) 19:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taking an unused username. 

message: I've got a concern that this page invades users privacy by the fact they have to submit their IP address when they request an account. There must be a better way to do this, how about a mailing list similar to unblock-en-l where users are directed to that if they are unable to create an account? It seems quite a serious conern to me that's all. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That and the e-mail addresses can present a bit of a problem. What's done currently is the page history is periodically deleted approximately every week or two, although there is still the chance that an attacker could constantly monitor the page and catch the information before it gets deleted. There is discussion above on this talk page about the possibility of using a mailing list, although the developers were unwilling to set one up. Tra (Talk) 21:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unblock-en-l routinely handles account requests (for avoiding anon blocks), but on an archived mailing list your IP is saved, as well as being given to everyone on the list. Prodego talk 00:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are worried about privacy, delete this project, and form a list serv on OTRS to handle username requests. username-en-l@wikipedia.org Miranda 17:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I asked Brion to set up such a list, and he refused.  If he's willing to do so, that would work much better.  Ral315 » 17:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why'd he refuse? SQL(Query Me!) 19:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Privacy 

message: Well I have been on this Project since around the Time it started and I still think this is a really bad idea.. mainly due to the Privacy issues and the fact that non-admins are creating accounts for others and there is no way of knowing if the same non-admins will abuse the accounts for themselves or instead of "sending the password via e-mail", they create the account and in the process diminish the chances of the person requesting the account to ever get to use it and its high-time now, seeing the names of users helping in creating the accounts are themselves "un-trustworthy", it will be advisable that from now on only admins and a couple of editors chosen by the 4 leading admins on this project (Ais523, Tra, Od Mishehu and WODUP) cause when I was here, there were many times accounts were created by *newbies* whose accounts were themselves created by other editors on the project, abuse WP:ACC and created accounts for their misuse and we don't actually know how many of these accounts created actually were used by the same user requesting it and finally the privacy policy of Wikipedia  succumbs to this project since the requesters IP and e-mail are shown for everyone to see and who knows how many of these requesters had had their E-mail spammed..I believe its time that this Project was handled by the OTRS and to uphold Wikimedia's PRIVACY POLICY.....--Cometstyles 15:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OMG, most of this is one sentence!  :)  Who is abusing what now?  I don't understand.  Are there examples?  —Wknight94 (talk) 15:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Punctuation-pedia? I suggested a long time ago (scroll up) that this were to be handled by OTRS. M.(er) 19:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I said it further up that OTRS should be used for this. When you sign up for an account here, you reveal your IP, username and email address to everyone - it completely goes against the privacy policy. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the first post on this page, I believe I suggested that in February.  Complain to the OTRS/listserv people.  Also, setting up a hierarchy and creating bureaucracy never solves anything. -- John Reaves 15:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would take a pretty dedicated person to actual make use of this page for abuse.  By the time an editor was established enough to even warrant abuse, the page history would be long gone. -- John Reaves 15:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But the point is, it is open to abuse. You are right in many ways that someone would have to be dedicated, but you are revealing some very intimate details that many people would not want revealing. If this was released by a checkuser, they'd be shot. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, I totally agree with Ryan, this Project is not safe and definitely discredits Wikipedia's Privacy Policy and believe me there are more people "dedicated" to destroying wikipedia than promoting it and now we have more than enough admins and if atleast 6 of them took charge of this project, this won't be happening. As mentioned by Ryan, misuse of intimate details will create a havoc and its better to put an end to this before it escalates any further and to answer Wknight94's question, No..or none that I'm aware of..since I sort of left this project when I saw the increase of the number of editors helping here whose accounts in wikipedia terms were 'new' and I'm no fan of allowing blocked vandals/socks from abusing this and its about time there was a bureaucracy setup on this Project for the betterment off all those new users who "actually" want to improve wikipedia..--Cometstyles 16:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy.  Though I've obviously supported the off-wiki idea since the beginning. -- John Reaves 16:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

text: When the PRIVACY POLICY gets abused.. IGNORE ALL RULES!!.( I knew this policy will come in handy  ) .......--Cometstyles 16:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Project

message: Just noticed, this header template does not list October! It looks somewhat complex, so, could someone with better knowledge of templates correct it? SQL(Query Me!) 09:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've fixed it. --ais523 12:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! SQL(Query Me!) 12:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Request an account/Header]] 

message: In the last 24+ hours, the IP 66.212.28.34 has requested six different accounts, and five have been created.  If I'm reading the WhoIs data right, this resolves to an ISP that services businesses in the Los Angeles area, so the IP might be relatively static, possible shared, and I don't think it's kids on a school project.  Other edits seem to show some interest in Australia-related subjects.
If I understand right, the only reason anyone would come to WP:ACC is if (a) you don't understand the instructions on the account creation page, (b) you can't read the captcha image, or (c) there's a problem creating the account.  Something just seems off here.  If it was someone accumulating sleeper accounts, they could just do it themselves, so I don't see the benefit of coming here, but still, just seems weird.  Could it be that, since we created them here, the person creating the accounts thinks it might be harder to track all the other accounts?  Is this an open proxy of some kind?
Do we keep fulfilling the requests, or should we look into this a little further? --barneca (talk) 15:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a 6-account-per-IP-per-day limit. It may be that someone accumulating sleepers has hit the limit and is looking for more via WP:ACC. However, in that case it would likely be a bad decision from that person's point of view, because the WP:ACC data could just be fished up from deleted history to show a connection between the accounts if needed. --ais523 15:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Forgot I posted here yesterday.  Thanks, ais523, that would explain things; although I hope there's an innocent explanation, I've gone ahead and put the seven talk pages on my watchlist, so if vandalism warnings pop up on one I'll remember what the other accounts were.  Not to spill the WP:BEANS, but I can now think of at least one reason why a sock farmer might want to use WP:ACC; I wonder if we should consider an official, or unofficial, limit to the number of new accounts we'll create for one IP? Eh, probably an isolated case, anyway. --barneca (talk) 14:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I decided to visit the IP via HTTP... http://66.212.28.34/... It's some sort of file hosting service? SQL(Query Me!) 19:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Barneca, if you're looking for a more innocent explanation than accumulation of sleepers, it is possible that it is a teacher. On unblock-en-i I have dealt with several teachers who were at schools with anon blocked/account creation disabled IP addresses. They were preparing to do lessons using Wikipedia as a teaching method and they wanted to know if they could create accounts for their students who don't have internet access at home. Not all that likely, admittedly, but it is a possibility for someone looking for an innocent explanation. :) I think we should have an unofficial limit for the number of accounts we will create for an IP and I do think if an IP is asking for multiple accounts in a reasonable period of time, they need to be prepared to explain why the need multiple accounts. We've had folks on unblock-en-l who have cycled through accounts, as one is blocked, requesting another and so on until we put a stop to it. If people need multiple accounts, I think it reasonable to ask why. Sarah 16:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiple requests from same IP 

message: I notice several threads above, all saying that it's bad design to make email addresses visible to others for this process.  I think you guys have made huge strides in improving the privacy of this process since many of those older  comments were made, but it would still be good if there was a way to do it without giving out the email address.  So. I noticed with interest Sarah's comment to someone on the project page that they could email unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org or unblock-enwiki@wikimedia.org for a new account instead.  Is whoever deals with those lists willing to create new accounts?  And if so, shouldn't we beef up the number of people doing it that way, and shut this page down? --barneca (talk) 23:06, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I think this would be a bad idea to shut down this page, new users aren't really aware of privacy, and if they were, they would most certainly note a secondary email address which they use rather than their most common primary one for their Wikipedia account, I doubt any trolls would wish to go and annoy all of these people by email, personally. Qst 16:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: New users to the project aren't always new users to the Internet, or to Internet safety. Spebi 19:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requester's email made public