[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