[Foundation-l] Single user login decision
Anon Sricharoenchai
anon.hui at gmail.com
Wed Apr 16 13:25:38 UTC 2008
Is there any committee to make the decision on this?
This decision impact many user's right.
It should be done carefully and peacefully.
Public hearing is a necessary condition.
We should not proceed current implementation of SUL, without public hearing.
On 4/14/08, Anon Sricharoenchai <anon.hui at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.*.
>
More information about the foundation-l
mailing list