On Wednesday 31 December 2003 09:38 pm, Timwi wrote: Umm, this sounds like an incredibly bad idea: 1. Hassle 2. Account stealing: This would be a feast day for any trolls or malcontents (and wikipedia seems to have quite a few of those) 3. Solution in search of a problem The only problem with the merge is the collision of accounts (eg. there exists a [[de:Jan]] and [[en:Jan]], but they are not the same person). Your proposal does not solve this, but would need to solve it in the same way as the simple merge would: In the rare cases that this happens, people need to discuss and come to an amicable sollution. (I would suggest that whoever registered that account name first should have priority.) Best, Sascha Noyes -- Please encrypt all email. Public key available from www.pantropy.net/snoyes.asc

What about keeping accounts as they are, but letting users define links between them? For instance, EnUser on en: declares his user matches DeUser on de:, does the reverse. And automatically when s/he logins on either of the sites, login occurs on the other sites. Because the system knows that EnUser on en: <=> DeUser on de: (obviously you need both declarations for the match to occur). Ok that would still let users with different accounts on different wikipedias. But you could retrive interwiki modifications from the user, using linked information. And it would let users keep their current accounts, so no friction. OTOH, it means 'User' on en: is not necessarily the same as 'User' on de:. Just my 2 cents of € Nicolas

Timwi wrote: Any conversion process will involve some degree of hassle, but by the same token it is a one time hassle. Only nothing about it will make sure that it is a recurring hassle. I have no idea how big the account conflict problem really is. Once we move unconflicted accounts, users with equivalent multiple accounts (i.e. same name and password), and new users into the new database , how much will be leftover? This problem is possible but improbable. We are dealing with a transitional issue where the vulnerability will not be long-lived. Problem accounts will retain their problem status. Problem title accounts will be transferred just like anything else. During the transition concerned Wikipedians can be on the lookout for unusual activity. OK, but I would not favour the name going to the one that was longest established. If one of the Jans joined more than a year ago then disappeared after contributing for one week, he should not have priority over the more recent Jan who may have become a steady contributor. I also think that there should be an association segment to each user file. Each user will by default have an association with the wiki where he first registered, and each entry transferred from the old system will retain its association with each wiki where the owner is also registered (perhaps even retaining the registration number). If, as a registered user, I visit another project where I am not associated, I would be told, "If you want to be associated with this Wiki, please press here." I would then be assigned an association number with that project. This could also be useful if anyone wanted to have a list of all who are interested in a particular project, particularly a small one. A similar system could be used for accreditations as sysops or developers. Ec

Timwi wrote: This argument is a bit on the semantic side. There is, of course, Wikibooks, and Wiktionary etc., not to mention the different language projects. Having associations will make it easier for those in smaller projects to know just who is interested in what project. Ray