[Foundation-l] [Wikitech-l] Primary account for single user login

Tue Apr 8 07:11:33 UTC 2008

== Negotiation for consent ==
Would it be possible to let the conflicting users to resolve the
conflict by themselves, not by the decision of the automatic system
using edit-count?
The renaming of username will be made on their consent.

Example,

1. user123 at fr.wikipedia and user123 at ja.wikipedia is owned by different
person, Mr.  A and Mr. B.
2. user123 at fr.wikipedia and user123 at ja.wikipedia will talk together to
make the final agreement that who will own the user name user123, and
who will be renamed.
3. If the final agreement is that Mr. A will own user123, then Mr. B
will, by himself, rename all of user123 username that he currently
possess.

4. If they can't find any final agreement, then user123 will never be
merged forever, or until they can make the agreement in anytime later.
 The conflicting status will be held until they can make the
agreement.

5. In the case that Mr. B is an inactive user that Mr. A can't even
contact to discuss for the agreement, there will be some expire time
(may be one year) that, if Mr. B not response before this expire time,
user123 of Mr. B will be forced to be renamed.
5.1 There will be some mechanism to let Mr. B to leave a message that
he agree for his user to be renamed or not.
5.2 If Mr. B leave the message "not agree", he must talk to Mr. A
until they meet the same agreement.
5.3 If Mr. B not leave the message before the expire time, Mr. A can
force renaming of Mr. B account.

== Unify by language ==
Apart from the above solution, I would like to purpose the less
conflict solution.
To merge the user accounts by language.

Example,

* user123 on fr.wikipedia.org, fr.wiktionary.org, fr.wikibooks.org,
fr.wik*.org will be merged
* user123 on ja.wikipedia.org, ja.wiktionary.org, ja.wikibooks.org,
ja.wik*.org will be merged
* user123 on fr.wikipedia.org and ja.wikipedia.org won't be merged, so
that user123 at fr.* and user123 at ja.* will be separated.

1. This will make much less conflict than unifying all language.
1.1 Most conflicts in non-english wiki is the conflicting of user
between diffenrent language.
1.2 Even on the first-come-first-serve (FCFS) basis, this still result
in few conflict.  While it look very unreasonable when the first
registered user will suddenly gain control for wikis on all languages,
it is more reansonble when FCFS is used only among the same language,
since it cover not too much wiki websites.

2. Most users will not be likely to actively edit non-trivial contents
in more than one or two languages.  And it does not take too much
energy for one person to maintain their user
account/preference/watchlist in only two or three languages.
3. Most users will tend to agree to loss their username (if conflict
with others) on their non-primary language that they not actively edit
or contribute only trivial contents.

4. Even the new registered user (after this unify) will only get the
accounts of the same username on wikis of the same language.  They
will not get accounts on all languages.  Why let FCFS users to reserve
the control on wikis of hundred languages that most of them are
unlikely to edit or taking any attention?  Unifying all languages is
an overuse.

=== Account in wiki commons ===
The only problem is that, wiki commons will be merged with which language?
* commons --> en.*, fr.*, ja.* ?
* Let the person who own user account on commons to choose the
language that will be merged with commons?
* Or the person on the language with most edit-count will get username
on commons?
* Or let the users to negotiage for the agreement by themselves?

== Public hearing ==
However, until now, why not have any poll, or any public hearing,
about this topic, from wikipedia community?

>
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 09:17:00 -0400
> From: "Jay R. Ashworth" <jra at baylink.com>
> Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] Primary account for single user login
> To: wikitech-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Message-ID: <20071015131700.GB21934 at cgi.jachomes.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> On Sun, Oct 14, 2007 at 10:54:36PM +0100, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> > How about we do away with usernames altogether and just give everyone
> > numbers? Works for the Borg...
>
> Could I have 7 of 9?
>
> Cheers,
> -- jra
> --
> Jay R. Ashworth                   Baylink                      jra at baylink.com
> Designer                     The Things I Think                       RFC 2100
> Ashworth & Associates     http://baylink.pitas.com                     '87 e24
> St Petersburg FL USA      http://photo.imageinc.us             +1 727 647 1274
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 12:37:01 -0400
> From: Anthony <wikimail at inbox.org>
> Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] Primary account for single user login
> To: "Wikimedia developers" <wikitech-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID:
>         <71cd4dd90710150937m133e45e0hea9828d8f7ff08cc at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> On 10/12/07, Rob Church <robchur at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I have noticed a worrying trend where members of the community are
> > leaping up and saying, "well, it should be done like this, not like
> > that", which is a discussion that should have been held several years
> > ago.
>
> The thing is, the discussion *was* had several years ago.  See the
> thread entitled "Single login - decision 2004" on foundation-l.  And
> it seems that most people discussing it there, including Erik, Jimbo,
> Jamesday, Kate, and Daniel Mayer, said that they'd prefer not to
> rename any accounts.
>
> Angela and Ant commented that they'd like for there to be a poll.
> AFAIK there never was such a poll.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 18:39:05 +0100
> From: "Thomas Dalton" <thomas.dalton at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] Primary account for single user login
> To: "Wikimedia developers" <wikitech-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID:
>         <a4359dff0710151039k67013bd2yb12de9ecc5e3c817 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> > The thing is, the discussion *was* had several years ago.  See the
> > thread entitled "Single login - decision 2004" on foundation-l.  And
> > it seems that most people discussing it there, including Erik, Jimbo,
> > Jamesday, Kate, and Daniel Mayer, said that they'd prefer not to
> > rename any accounts.
> >
> > Angela and Ant commented that they'd like for there to be a poll.
> > AFAIK there never was such a poll.
>
> You can't do it without renaming accounts. It would be pointless. Why
> have a single account per person if they all have different names?
> It's not really even a single account, since accounts are pretty much
> defined by their names (yes, there is a numerical id in the database,
> but only developers care about it - and I don't think that id would be
> the same anyway).
>
> You can only have a poll if there are multiple options. Edit counts is
> the only option I've seen anyone propose that stands a chance of
> working.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 13:07:01 -0600
> From: Daniel Cannon <cannon.danielc at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] Primary account for single user login
> To: Wikimedia developers <wikitech-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID: <4713BA55.3030407 at gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Anon Sricharoenchai wrote:
> > According to the conflict resolution process, that the account with
> > most edits is selected as a primary account for that username, this
> > may sound reasonable for the username that is owned by the same person
> > on all wikimedia sites.
> >
> > But the problem will come when the same username on those wikimedia
> > sites is owned by different person and they are actively in used.
>
> One point worth considering: Active users will, in the vast majority of
> cases, specify an e-mail address for their account. If these are two
> different, yet equivocally active users, even with the same username,
> they will most likely specify unique e-mail addresses. As such, and
> correct me if this has changed, the accounts will not be merged and
> treated as the same account, at least not without contacting both users
> first to find a resolution. If they have not specified an e-mail
> address, then either the accounts will not be merged or, if the accounts
> are eventually merged, the users will be more than capable of contacting
> Brion or another member of Wikimedia's technical staff to work out a
> resolution.
>
> > The active account that has registered first (seniority rule) should
> > rather be considered the primary account.
> > Since, I think the person who register first should own that username
> > on the unified
> > wikimedia sites.
>
> This approach seems even more arbitrary than the edit-count approach.
> Consider that almost every Wikimedia project has a User:I They are most
> likely *all* different individuals. Why should the first registered
> User:I suddenly contain control and attribution for all of the other
> User:I's out there?
>
> Naturally, the editcount approach does not present a much better
> solution to this problem, but since almost User:I's except for the one
> on enwiki have been virtually deceased, it seems appropriate for
> enwiki's User:I to be User:I on all projects. The conflict practically
> fails to exist if the other User:I's have specified e-mail addresses, as
> they can then be contacted to work out a resolution.
>
> >
> > Imagine, what if the wikimedia sites have been unified ever since the sites are
> > first established long time ago (that their accounts have never been
> > separated),
> > the person who register first will own that username on all of the wikimedia
> > sites.
>
> Idealism is a nice world to live in. Unfortunately nothing about SUL is
> ideal. It's taking nearly a decade worth of history on hundreds (if not
> now thousands) of sites, containing an uncountable number of conflicts
> and questions about who is who and what is what, and attempting to glue
> them together in to one unified Wikimedia. Regardless of what approach
> is taken, this is going to be messy and cause a lot of headaches. Thus,
> the approach that is the most likely to minimize these headaches and
> this mess, namely the editcount-based solution, has been chosen.
>
> > The person who come after will be unable to use the registered
> > username, and have
> > to choose their alternate username.
> > This logic should also apply on current wikimedia sites, after it have been
> > unified.
>
> And the detriment of a quite inactive user who did not even feel the
> need to specify an e-mail address now having to go by a different
> username is ...? Naturally, accreditation issues can be quite easily
> resolved by developers, and no user is going to be revoked of his
> technical rights incorrectly nor is another user going to suddenly
> obtain ungranted rights on any project. As such, I fail to see what the
> real concern here is.
>
> - --
> Daniel Cannon (AmiDaniel)
>
> http://amidaniel.com
> cannon.danielc at gmail.com
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iD8DBQFHE7pUFRAT5u/mSaMRAgiSAJ0QHkDBeA705+21DM5MrNjj8H1nhgCgh4qC
> Bs+zvBtsJb2nCxnIY/iYYug=
> =mWgD
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 15:45:36 -0400
> From: Anthony <wikimail at inbox.org>
> Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] Primary account for single user login
> To: "Wikimedia developers" <wikitech-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID:
>         <71cd4dd90710151245s386ef599n3c4cab8b81b79797 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> On 10/15/07, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > The thing is, the discussion *was* had several years ago.  See the
> > > thread entitled "Single login - decision 2004" on foundation-l.  And
> > > it seems that most people discussing it there, including Erik, Jimbo,
> > > Jamesday, Kate, and Daniel Mayer, said that they'd prefer not to
> > > rename any accounts.
> > >
> > > Angela and Ant commented that they'd like for there to be a poll.
> > > AFAIK there never was such a poll.
> >
> > You can't do it without renaming accounts.
>
> Depends on what it is you're doing.
>
> > It would be pointless. Why
> > have a single account per person if they all have different names?
>
> Presumably at some point (maybe decades from now at the current rate)
> there are going to be shared preferences, shared watchlists, maybe
> even single sign on.  In fact, until Single User Login was redefined
> to mean renaming of accounts, the whole point of it was supposed to be
> to prepare for these sorts of things.
>
> > You can only have a poll if there are multiple options. Edit counts is
> > the only option I've seen anyone propose that stands a chance of
> > working.
> >
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Single_login_poll
>
> All three options would work.
>
>