Jump to content

Single User Login finalisation announcement/Schema announcement/lv

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
This page is a translated version of the page Single User Login finalisation announcement/Schema announcement and the translation is 14% complete.

Single-user login finalization is scheduled to occur on or around 15 April 2015. The text of the general announcement can be found on this page. Basically, the finalization will rename users so that every account on general, public Wikimedia projects will be global and have a unique name. This process has been occurring in stages and is now near the point of completion. This will require renaming 2,851,363 accounts that exist on local wikis that do not exist globally and have clashing usernames. Accounts that are already global (check on Special:CentralAuth) will not be renamed and will not be affected by this process. Some basic metrics will be updated as the process moves forward.

All accounts that require renaming will be contacted on the user talk page of each wiki where an account is registered. Additionally, each individual wiki has Special:UsersWhoWillBeRenamed, a page which lists each user that will be renamed on that wiki. Local community members are welcome and encouraged to use that information to help users who may need it. If a renamed account attempts to log in with their old credentials post-finalization, they will be informed of the rename's occurrence. Users can request a global rename on their local wiki at any time before or after this process using Special:GlobalRenameRequest.

Kā nosaka kurus kontus pārdēvēt?

In the event of a clash, where a global account has clashing local accounts, the global account holder will get to keep their name and clashing local accounts are renamed either to a new username of the account holder's choice, or to a localized form of the username if a new username is not selected (e.g. Oldusername~ptwiki). In the event of a clash, where multiple local accounts clash with each other, and no global account exists, the following username conflict resolution scheme is used to decide who gets the global account name. This is determined and executed by a software script. All of the same conditions above and below will be applied to blocked accounts.

Note that if a right is not listed here, then it is not considered during the calculation of who will own the global account name.

  1. Global account holder
  2. CheckUser
  3. Oversight
  4. Bureaucrat
  5. Administrator

= Atrisināšana ar esošajām lietotāju vārdu sadursmēm

If there is a case of local accounts clashing where none of the accounts holds a user right mentioned above or a user right is shared and there is no global account, the local account with the most edits on any wiki at the time this announcement is posted will keep the name. In the event there is a tie with the number of edits, the local account with the earliest registration date will keep the name. If there is a tie with the registration date, or neither account has a registration date due to the age of the account, the script will choose the owner at random.

Kādēļ šāds plāns?

  • User rights are the fairest way of determining unique account name ownership. No way of doing this is perfectly fair, but others involve too much variance between wikis. For example: the value of an edit count varies massively between wikis, and we have no way to account for that programmatically if we had to use the edit count as the chief determining factor and not just as a tie breaker.
  • These rights, and only these rights, were chosen as they are the core user rights across all of our wikis.
  • The ordering chosen represents the difficulty of acquiring the respective user right, and the perceived need for the person with the right to act on a cross-wiki basis.
  • The problem of clashing usernames requires a technical solution to solve. However, it is not the only solution. Ultimately, the stewards and global renamers can override this scheme on a case-by-case basis by renaming users through the appropriate community channels, processes, and policies, and with discussion among the affected parties. This process should be as collaborative as possible.