Help talk:Unified login

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Archives of this page

Please add new topics to the bottom of this page
Archived discussion
  1. Talk:Single signon transition
  2. Talk:Single login
  3. Talk:Single login poll
  4. Talk:Single login specifications
External discussion
  1. [Wikitech-l] Single user login status --Brion Vibber
  2. [Wikitech-l] Primary account for single user login --Ans 11:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Local username policies[edit]

(I'm not sure that I post this in the right place, if not, please move where it should be.)
What is the official stance these days on the local username policies? The unified login seemingly should make those obsolete, but at least currently they aren't. For example, Croatian Wikipedia (hr.wp) is quite restrictive, and usernames "with three or more consecutive uppercase letters are not allowed". This is embedded into the login filter, and so I (User:YLSS) cannot log into hr.wp in any way – neither automatically, nor manually. I have discussed the issue with local admins, but with no result... YLSS (talk) 17:16, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

@YLSS: please go and create your account, I have removed that filter, though can never tell when someone will reintroduce it.  — billinghurst sDrewth 08:46, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, billinghurst, I logged in OK. YLSS (talk) 12:54, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Great. If this sort of issue recurs, then my recommendation is come and whine at Stewards' noticeboard. We have manners and contacts, and if all that fails, clubs and keys. ;-) semi-joking  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:38, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I hope that local username policies will become obsolete, and admins who try to enforce local policies on global usernames will be gently encouraged to find something else to do. Local username policies are useless gatekeeping. That Croatian policy is absolutely absurd, but the English "UAA" policy has been way over-enforced for years as well. People just can't resist making bots and queues to block people whose name looks the slightest bit suspicious, and it seems they end up seeing new users as just sequences of characters to approve or deny, instead of people. Rspeer (talk) 06:15, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
    • I wouldn't focus too much on policies. After SUL was introduced in 2008, several wikis kept screaming that their policies were alive and strong, including things like forcing Latin alphabet usernames. However, in reality common sense has prevailed and the enforcement of local policies has not caused huge problems. --Nemo 13:21, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
      • I'd take YLSS's complaint as evidence that common sense hasn't prevailed. Also, getting English Wikipedia to stop banning Arabic usernames for being "confusing" was a policy change I had to fight for. It didn't just happen naturally. Every instance where the enwp policy shows common sense are due to the persistent effort of a minority. Rspeer (talk) 05:50, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
        There will always be the need to utilise local blacklists to manage issues, and some local processes will be necessary to prevent certain usernames, so saying no local policies is always going to be difficult. That said, stewards will look to address problematic blacklists/filters, especially where they clearly block users of good reputation, as per the example quoted. So it is not the policy that is the problem, it is a poor implementation. The globalisation process is managing numbers of these issues, and we will just need to slowly step through and modernise.  — billinghurst sDrewth 08:52, 20 September 2014 (UTC)