Talk:Single User Login finalisation announcement/Schema announcement

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Questions about determining factors[edit]

I have several questions about determining factors.

  1. the local account with the most edits on any wiki at the time this announcement is posted will keep the name. If, for example, they translate this announcement into Albanian 3 weeks fater it was posted, will it be considered?
  2. Why isn't global rollbacker flag included in chief determining factors?
  3. Why aren't flags like rollbacker, filemover or reviewer (Flagged Revisions are used on several dozen of wikis, including major projects like English [in the form of Pending Changes], German, Polish, Russian & Ukrainian Wikipedia) used as tiebreakers instead of (where possible) random choice of the global name owner? --Синкретик (talk) 13:39, 14 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Global rollbacker (and global sysop, steward etc) rights can only be assigned to SUL accounts, therefore, they will be unaffected by the process. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 13:44, 14 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Problems with the schema[edit]

I looked through Special:UsersWhoWillBeRenamed in ukwiki and I have found three problems:

  1. Some users seem to be eligible for unification as they have the same email cross-wiki but probably did not launch unification themselves. There were some comments that such accounts will be unified even without user's request, although this does not seem to be the case. A good example is Special:CentralAuth/Purodha and his bot, Special:CentralAuth/Purbo T
  2. Some technical accounts do not have SULs and will be rename as well. The most weird cases are Special:CentralAuth/Babel AutoCreate, Special:CentralAuth/Redirect fixer and Special:CentralAuth/MediaWiki default. Perhaps some manual unification is needed here, especially for Babel AutoCreate which is still active
  3. In some cases indefblocked users get priority over active users. For example, in Special:CentralAuth/ANT a blocked sockpuppet gets priority over creator of Ukrainian Wikibooks. Is it possible to add a priority firstly to users who are not indefinitely blocked and than only then to higher editcount?

Thanks — NickK (talk) 23:24, 15 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was wondering about sockpuppets and other indefinitely blocked users getting priority, which is sad for those users who share a name with them. --Izno (talk) 18:26, 16 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • It seems that the winners were selected when someone solved phab:T89770, so the indefinitely blocked sockpuppets (and other users) have now been granted SUL accounts under their current names. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:53, 17 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    As it seems that this effectively happened for all users, perhaps some policy for usurpation of these names is needed. As Global rename policy says nothing about usurpation perhaps it needs ammendment that autocreated SULs of indefblocked vandals/sockpuppets can be usurped without discussion. In addition, such ammendment is needed ASAP, as SUL finalisation is scheduled for 15 April, which is within less then one month, not even enough for an appropriate RFC. Basically what is needed is a turnaround solution for what SUL finalisation script has done yesterday, perhaps via usurpation of SULs with only vandal/sockpuppet accounts. @Keegan (WMF): and @Legoktm:, what do you think about that? — NickK (talk) 23:06, 18 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I highly encourage a global usurpation policy. It's for the community to build and sign of on, though. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 23:28, 18 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Keegan (WMF): Could you please suggest how it can be implemented within less than a month? I think there is no doubt that this policy must be implemented before SUL finalisation, otherwise we will have a serious problem with thousands of active users being renamed because script has given SUL to a vandal. I would be interested in contributing to the discussion, but RFC usually last longer than a month, so I don't really know how to make it functional by 15 April, that's too short notice — NickK (talk) 00:16, 19 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I don't see why it would have to take a month to decide, people just need to start a discussion. The global renamers were set up in under a month. I don't think many would disagree with your proposal. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 00:22, 19 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Keegan (WMF): Thank you for your optimism, I have posted my suggestions at Talk:Global rename policy. This page is in discussion since October 2014, however, but I will hope it will take less than a month to make a decision — NickK (talk) 01:07, 19 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Warning time for users[edit]

Hi. Have affected users been contacted about this change and been given sufficient opportunity to self-rename before being forcibly renamed? I would think we would need to give users at least a few months of warning here. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:02, 16 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You can read about the notication timeline at Single User Login finalisation announcement/Timeline. It says that there are three notifications: on "12 Feb" if the account has an unconfirmed e-mail address, on "23–25 Feb" on the talk pages of all affected users, and then again on "9–16 Mar" on the talk pages of all affected users.
Phab:T73241 was closed on 5 March and a user noted that the task had been done, so maybe "12 Feb" was at some point around 5 March.
I checked the talk pages of some affected users on Commons and Wikipedia (de:, en:, sv:) and couldn't find any indication that the notifications due on "23–25 Feb" or on "9–16 Mar" have been delivered yet. However, it seems that one notification, unclear which one of them, was delivered to Testwiki on 14 March. Check testwiki:Special:Contributions/MediaWiki message delivery. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:16, 16 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This conversation made me realize that the translation of the individual talk page message appears incomplete in many of the languages, due to FuzzyBot "updating" (or more like reverting the translations back to English) on March 14. I've fixed my language, but now most of the translations have a majority of their text in English. 朝彦 (Asahiko) (talk) 14:55, 16 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See here. The actual text which will be sent will not be directly from the current versions of those pages. --Glaisher (talk) 15:36, 16 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, okay, that makes me feel much better that (majority of) non-English speakers will see the message in their language. Thanks! --朝彦 (Asahiko) (talk) 20:20, 16 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That timeline was a draft, I thought I had {{tl}draft}} at the top at some point. I dunno. Anyway, users are being contacted. 1.4 million of 2.8 million are done. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 23:27, 18 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]