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

[Anon Sricharoenchai]

On 4/10/08, Brion Vibber <brion at wikimedia.org> wrote:
>  >
>  > Is it possible to defer the creation of global account for the
>  > conflicting username?
>
>
> Currently, it is deferred until one or the other chooses to migrate
>  their account.
>
>  Note that creation of the global account does not impede the use of
>  conflicting, unmigrated local accounts.
>

The global account will suppress the creation of new local account in
other wikis.
Can local account of the conflicting username still be created in
other wiki (the wiki in which that username hasn't been registered
before), if all party of a conflicting username, does not yet choose
to migrate their accounts?

Apart from that, is there currently a plan to later force renaming of
the conflicting/unmigrated local active account?
Before doing this decision, we should listen to the opinion from the public.

>  > 1. To defer until they can negotiate each other, to choose who will
>  > hold the global account.
>  > 2. No automatic process in choosing global account holder.
>  > 3. User must wait until all of the conflicting accounts has been
>  > renamed (by the consent of those account holders, or forced by sysop
>  > if those accounts are impostors), before they can merge and create the
>  > global account.
>
> This would mean that stale accounts (for which no negotiation is
>  possible, as there's no one at the other end) would jam up the system
>  entirely, which is unacceptable.

As I have already stated before, after some period of time, the
stale/not-responding accounts can be forced to be renamed.

>
>  To make it possible for the system to actually work, we use an automated
>  selection for the global account, which can be overridden manually if
>  and when specific people require it.
>
>
>  > This will make things easier, technically.
>
>
> It would make things much more difficult, as forgotten, unused, and
>  stale accounts would gum up the works, requiring a much larger amount of
>  manual intervention than the legitimate disputes.
>

I see.  The main goal is to eliminate the stale/inactive account.
But the automated selection will also impact the non-stale account.

It should have a way to stop the automated selection of a specific
username, if someone owning that username can show that he is not a
stale account.

>  To make it possible for the system to actually work, we use an automated
>  selection for the global account, which can be overridden manually if
>  and when specific people require it.

Can people request to stop the automated selection and stop the
creation of global account of their username by another party?
Especially, when their account lose in the automated selection to
another party.
This request will be an obvious evidence that those account is not stale.

There should be a chance for them to show this evidence within some period.

There are ways to automatically and easily determine that the account
is not stale,

1. If one is trying to use his account to perform a merge, but fail to
get the global account (since he lose in the automated selection),
this will be another obvious evidence that the account is not stale.
Then the creation of the global account by the other party should be
suppressed, and notify a message like "There's non-stale, conflicting
account using this username, then the global account creation for this
username is deferred".

2. If the account have just recently edited the wiki page, this is
another evidence.  If at least two subsets of account using a same
username have recently edited some wiki page, then suppress the global
account creation of that username.

While there's currently no way to determine who should mostly deserve
to get the global account, to defer the automated selection of that
username is the most compromising thing.


There're three main concerns that must be taken carefully and peacefully,
I. Eliminate only the really stale account
II. Don't force rename/remove the local non-stale account
III. Who should most deserve to register for the global account?

For the issues I and II, I would like to give some examples of marking the
account as non-stale,
   1. Mr.A own both user123 at fr.wikipedia and user123 at fr.wikibooks
   2. Both user123 at fr.wikipedia and user123 at fr.wikibooks have the same
email and password.
   3. If user123 at fr.wikipedia has recently edited a page, but
user123 at fr.wikibooks never edit any page.
   4. Then both user123 at fr.wikipedia and user123 at fr.wikibooks will be
marked as non-stale (eventhough user123 at fr.wikibooks never edit), and
will never be forced to be renamed/removed, forever (if he does not,
later, try to be an impostor).
   5. In another case, if user456 at fr.wikipedia have tried merging, but
lose the global account selection to another subset of user456.  Then
all acounts in the same subset of user456 at fr.wikipedia (those having
same email/password) will be marked as non-stale, and never be forced
rename/remove.
   6. The accounts in one subset will be removed if (and only if) all
accounts in that subset appear to never edit any page.

Mr.A rightfully deserve to own all of his local accounts, since he is non-stale.
This will be very peaceful, IMO.

Now, let's consider the issue III,

III. While every non-stale persons rightfully and peacefully own their
existing local accounts, who should most deserve to register for the
global account?

In other words, who should most deserve to gain control of the rest of
unregistered account?

Let's consider this,
1. Mr.A and Mr.B own user123 at fr and user123 at ja, respectively.
2. user123 on the rest of wikis (
user123@{en,zh,de,nl,...,meta,commons} ) have not yet been registered.
3. Both Mr.A and Mr.B are non-stale user.
4. The question is, between Mr.A and Mr.B, who deserve to get all
accounts on the rest of those wikis?

5. While currently there's no any automated measurement that is fair
and peaceful in all cases; then just simply give the global account to
the first one who firstly perform the merge (on that username).
   5.1 That is, if Mr.A appear to perform the merge before Mr.B, Mr.A
will immediately get the global account.
   5.2 On the other hand, if Mr.B perform the merge before Mr.A, Mr.B
will get the global account.
   5.3 Note that, the only non-stale subset (as marked by the
automated measurement mentioned above) will be allowed the perform the
merge.

6. This is the most simple and peaceful way.  I think almost everyone
can accept this, and can aware of the limitation of the system and of
people who implement it.
7. Sysop (especially, the local sysop) should NOT have more right or
chance to get the global account than the normal user.  The wikimedia
pioneer, developer, founder, and co-founder may be the exceptions.

With this approach,

1. This will make things easier, technically, since no need to run any
automated selection.
2. The conversion will go without worrying about any stale account
concern.  Stale account can still be eliminated.

3. The account that firstly appear to perform the merge will be
implicitly proving that he is non-stale account, and deserve to get
the global account. (This measurement may vary; depending on the
judgement that we will permit the subset that have never edited, to
get the global account or not)
4. This thing is equivalent to registering for all new unregistered
accounts on the rest of wikis, that the first one will deserve to get
those accounts (if he is not trying to be an impostor).  The only
difference is that, one who not owning any local account of that
username, will not be allowed to get the rest.
5. The first one will deserve, since everyone in the party (that own
the local account), have not yet own the global account.  According to
the above example, both Mr.A and Mr.B only own his local account, no
one own user123 at global yet.
6. Yes, this is to apply the first-come-first-serve (FCFS) in
registering for the username on the rest of those unregistered wikis.
Under current limitation, this is very reasonable.
7. While, there may be some little chances that the global account is
given to the impostor, but it will be at manageable level, if we can
always revoke or rename that global account later.

8. No one will be forced to rename his account.  He just lose the
right to create new account of the same username in the rest of the
unregistered wikis.  The winner just get the right for the username on
the rest of those wikis.
9. Every party will happy with or can accept this, since they will not
lose any registered account.  The worst case is that, they just lose
the chance to create new accounts on the rest.  (Before the FCFS
start, they could go to register for local account on the wikis that
they really not want to lose the right for their desired username on
those wikis in the future (if they lose in the FCFS))

Before starting FCFS, we should announce this to everyone, for them to
have chance to prepare themselves.  For example, to register the
username on the wikis that they not want to lose.  Mr.A may begin to
register all of user123 at fr.*, while Mr.B will register for all of
user123 at ja.*.