Talk:Account Creation Improvement Project/Archive 2
|This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.|
What is this?
In the last few hours, I've seen many editors create userpages with an edit summary the links back here. Of the few that I've seen, at least two had username and COI issues and one was a sockpuppet. How is it that so many accounts that are blocked pretty much on sight are creating userpages that link here? What's going on? I'm confused. HJ Mitchell (talk) 20:35, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- There are ongoing tests with new account creation features, including a tool for creating a userpage listing interests as part of the process. So these were likely just normal problems from users who happened to have gotten one of the test interfaces when they created their accounts.--Sage Ross (talk) 15:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, I see, so they just happened to have created their accounts at a time when you guys were testing something? That makes sense. Thanks for the clarification. 220.127.116.11 15:18, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Notes in edit summary of Userpages @ enwp
Hi. I just raised this with #wikimedia on freenode, and sort of got round to the Outreach website. I found an account on enwp this morning which had a mark in the edit summary of their userpage to state it was made through Outreach ACIP. The userpage was clearly being used for advertising, and the account username was promotional. Seeing that mark in the edit summary lead me to believe that the account itself was made through the ACIP, which I now know it wasn't. My first thoughts were "If this was made through the ACIP why did they allow a promotional username?" - Again, i know you didn't make it, now. If you have any involvement in the account creation process, maybe you could clarify exactly what you do, since seeing that message lead me to believe you'd done the whole thing. Maybe the message could be reworded in some way. I don't know, but it was an obvious conclusion to come to that if you'd made the user page, you'd had involvement in the account creation. Thoughts? BarkingFish (talk) 12:05, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, the wording may not be ideal. If you check out the section above this, you can see a short explanation of the same problem. Once these tests are made permanent (if ever), we should change this to reflect that this is the new official account creation, and that this project is no longer running. Do you have any suggestions for that?//Hannibal (talk) 11:28, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Glitch with User Page creation
I made an account here yesterday, and when the box came up to input what I wanted my userpage to say, I did. Then it reverted to the default text once I got to the next page. I had to go back and copy and paste the info. Good thing I had used a wiki before this, or I would have been confused. --Nathan2055 (talk) 16:33, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
I do quite a bit of outreach work under the auspices of WMUK, and somebody I was teaching recently created an account through the ACIP. I was impressed by the w:en:Template:New user bar. Am I right in assuming that whether or not a given new account comes through this process is random? If so, is there a way I can un-randomise it at events without manually entering a URL? Whoever's idea that template was, it's brilliant and it makes talking people through their first few minutes on Wikipedia much easier. HJ Mitchell (talk) 23:39, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
I have seen a few very low quality editors hit English Wikipedia by way of ACIP, as seen on their account creation diffs. Vandals, too, such as one I just encountered who made this inane edit as a first effort. Is there any way the process can be made less welcoming to minors and those who only wish to goof around? 18.104.22.168 01:07, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
I have been responding to new users/account creators on the Feedback Dashboard for a few days. I have made some of these observations on the talk page there:
Some responses to feedback may never be seen because it is not immediately clear to a newbie how he/she is communicated with/communicates with others via their talk page. I tried experimentally creating a new account and there was no information about the My talk tab and the orange stripe until someone (my alter ego!) had first communicated with me. The Feedback Dashboard response can be hours later when the user has logged out, never to be seen again. I think the information about the use of My talk needs to be up there, immediately, as soon as a new account is created. Otherwise, how are we to offer help? I think some people could log out in confusion, panic or frustration before we have had a chance to welcome them or influence their behaviour.
The orange new messages stripe has an option to see (last change) which, although experienced users have become so familiar with it, presents blocks of raw text that include markup. Could this be modified/explained to new users somehow?
It is also true, as some new users have pointed out, that the Edit button does not appear before you click on My talk. What it it actually says is "Create", which could be interpreted as, Create a page or Create this page. I can see why new users start to create a new article on their User page or User talk page.--Harkey Lodger (talk) 15:42, 3 April 2012 (UTC)