Talk:Single User Login finalisation announcement/Archives/2013-04
|Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in April 2013, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion or the archives index.|
Wikivoyage account merging
All of the Wikivoyages that existed prior to the WMF have a special extension that allows bureaucrats to merge accounts that existed before the merger. How will this be affected by this change? --Rschen7754 04:27, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- We are looking at what the impact on this tool there will be, and considering making a version of this that will work for global accounts (though there may be legal issues - for me to check!). However, I imagine we'd have to withdraw this from local bureaucrats as I think it would need deletion of global accounts to be useful in the new context. Will follow-up. Jdforrester (WMF) (talk) 05:18, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Is this the final announcement? It's still quite lacking. --Nemo 06:52, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
List of users
- No, we are still checking which user accounts we can "globalise" automatically without user involvement; each user who is affected will get a direct talk page notice that their account will be renamed as soon as we have the final list (they will also get an e-mail if they have one set and have not opted out). Jdforrester (WMF) (talk) 15:42, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- This is also my question 1 in the section above. I'm particularly interested in the lists as a bureaucrat, to know what to work on in my project. --Nemo 19:04, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
question for unique names
Hello! One small question from ru.wiki to be more clear: for example, I have account JamesBond and related SUL in all Wikimedia projects, except from blablawikipedia where some old unattached account with the same name exists. Will both accounts (my SUL that is working in 99% projects and that unattached one) be renamed or just that one unattached? Will SUL remain existing as it is with unattached accounts renamed or will it be done in the other way? rubin16 (talk) 07:12, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Different user names on projects with conflicting names
What happens if there are name conflicts on one or more project and local renaming policy prevents username usurpation? Will it be possible to attach accounts with other user names at some point in the future? I've got a Commons account with about 50,000 edits which is not attached to my SUL account and which has a different user name because someone else has my name on Commons, and it would be nice to have that account attached to my global account at some point. --Stefan2 (talk) 08:20, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- As announced here, the commons account will be renamed away to Stefan2~commonswiki so that you can create a new SUL-attached account there then. --MF-W 09:54, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, but that's not what I was asking. I was asking whether it will be possible to attach my current Commons account, Commons:User:Stefan4 with around 50,000 edits, to my SUL account User:Stefan2 once the conflicting Commons account has been moved away. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:03, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- (Moved from Wikimedia Forum)
Thanks for the update. Could you clarify something for me - how will this development affect accounts left over on different wikis after a change of SUL name? Here's the situation:
- User ExampleJosephSmith, home wiki enwikipedia, accounts on several other wikis as ExampleJosephSmith, had their name and SUL changed at home to ExampleJoeSmith.
- At present, the user has to go to each of the other wikis - let's say svwikt, frquote and denews - and get a bureaucrat to rename their local account to match.
- After this change, the accounts would be ExampleJosephSmith~svwiktionary, ExampleJosephSmith~frwikiquote and ExampleJosephSmith~dewikinews.
If renaming will only work globally, will it still be possible for ExampleJosephSmith~svwiktionary to be renamed at svwiktionary to ExampleJoeSmith, as that global account already exists? Thanks. — Scott • talk 14:17, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
- In this example, it is very likely that ExampleJosephSmith would have been a SUL account already, with attached accounts on enwiki, svwikt, frquote and denews. The renaming on enwiki would only have removed the enwiki account from that SUL account (which by the way creates an unattached account, but it's quite likely that it was - at latest in the recent run of a script - converted to a SUL account). So there would be two SUL accounts, ExampleJosephSmith and
- But the question of course remains in principle the same. From what I was told, stewards will keep the possibility to do local renames to resolve such problems. That should make most of the issues that will come up with the forced-renamed accounts solvable; and eventually, in the future, maybe, might a tool for "merging SUL accounts" be developed. --MF-W 15:27, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why you changed the first bullet point in my example; I've restored it to how it was. My implication was that ExampleJosephSmith was renamed to ExampleJoeSmith and he attached that name to a new SUL account! But thanks for clarifying that the old SUL account would remain with the other accounts still attached to it, and that the way forward in future for such leftover accounts will be to get stewards involved.
- One last question - will the renaming of accounts subsequently be a top-level decision only? Because handing over global renaming powers to stewards will necessarily involve them having to make decisions on usurping accounts, and all the wikis have different local policies about that. They may be upset at having the decision taken out of their hands. — Scott • talk 08:20, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- Global rename policy is definitely to be developed. As for your example, there is likely to be 2 SUL accounts, ExampleJosephSmith and ExampleJoeSmith. Renaming the enwiki account doesn't remove ExampleJosephSmith@svwikt et al from the old SUL account. So as MF-W said, that's probably going to be solvable, not sure what the technical details will be. --Bencmq (talk) 09:06, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
-  Some unfortunate c&p mistake. Shame on me. --MF-W 09:47, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
This is my point 2 at #Unclear passages and missing information: who clashes and what to do, we don't have an answer yet. --Nemo 18:58, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Buggy unattached accounts (bug 39996)
Users who already have ~
Hey, all, how will this change interact with the local title blacklists? Will the blacklists just become unable to prevent the creation of an account (rendering the "newaccountonly" keyword useless)? Writ Keeper (talk) 16:54, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- Good question. I want to know this too. -- Alexf (talk) 17:39, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- Local blacklists have always been an oddity since 2008 (as it's not meant anything meaningful - user names are global and parochial rules aren't helpful); it would be sensible to disable newaccountonly on local lists (the global list will of course still work). However, we're not planning to do that immediately (it's not critical to this change, just a nice-to-have). Jdforrester (WMF) (talk) 18:13, 30 April 2013 (UTC)