Talk:Single login/Kowey

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

This page has been superseded by that at Single login (talk), and is retained mainly for historical purposes. New edits and discussion should be directed there.

User name conflicts[edit]

What if two different users on different pedias have the same name? Perl 23:03, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Sysops should probably be restricted to a single language, that is exactly the way things were before. But with two different users, I've got a couple of ideas up my sleeve. Will modify the page-- Kowey 12:34, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Sysops, bureaucrats, bans[edit]

Also, if someone is a sysop on one wiki, will that user also be a sysop on all the other wikis? That would be kind of helpful actually now that I think about it. Perl 00:54, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Sysops should probably be restricted to a single language, that is exactly the way things were before. But with two different users, I've got a couple of ideas up my sleeve. Will modify the page-- Kowey 12:34, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Helpful for what and for who? Except for special situation, contributors are made sysop after a local community decision and general requirements are: be fluent in the language and be an active contributors in this wiki. -- Looxix 12:02, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Note: text on page is... "Sysops, bureaucrats and bans should most likely remain local to the individual wikipedias."

I see no good reason that this would remain true. Why should a user who is banned from one wiki still be permitted to go and vandalise another wiki (a sysop person from that other wiki will be required to block the user again)? I don't see any reason in localizing sysops/bans and there are many good reasons why it would be better not to. Perl 16:15, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I see every reason that this remains true. Obviously, some users are made sysops on some wikipedias without community approval, either by deception, or because there is unfortunately not yet any community to approve them. There is no reason why these sysops should be automatically trusted on other wikipedias. As long as the process to name sysop is not really one that ensure trust is granted to the user per a large number of people, no automatic sysophood is acceptable wikipedia wide. The only thing that could go in the right direction is that sysophood is a temporary status, that required re-approval by community every couple of months. In short, that being a sysop is not per life grant. Anthere
I agree. Only the login, preferences (some people may prefer even this to be separate), and user pages should be the same. Everything else should be separate as it is now. Dori | Talk 16:29, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Thats not what I meant. Bans should not need to be repeated.( If sysop is not per life grant, then sysops can easily get their status removed if they cause problems.) Perl 22:18, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I don't think it would be a good idea for sysop powers to be extended to all wikis, at least not without some additional check for trustworthiness. Imagine if a user managed to obtain sysop status on a small wiki by lying and deception, after he had been repeatedly refused sysop status on a larger wiki. We wouldn't want such a person to have sysop access everywhere, would we? -- Tim Starling 03:51, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
There are also somewhat different policies on the different wikis concerning when to delete articles. I think a user should prove him/herself familiar enough with the policies of a specific project before (s)he is allowed to use the sysop powers there. Concerning bans however, I think they could be general. \Mike 09:10, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

bots[edit]

think about bots as well. if a bot account doesn't automatically get tagged as 'bot' on other pedias, what is the use of migrating such accounts at all? --tsca 19:17, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

noted -- Kowey 09:14, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Automatic migration[edit]

I don't like this proposal. Some of us created accounts on other pedias just to reserve the usernames or because we edited on more than one. With this proposal, we couldn't get migrated automatically. How about checking if the e-mail address is the same, and merging those accounts? If that fails, asking the users of those accounts if they are the same person and they wish to have the accounts merged? Dori | Talk 15:19, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hmm... i was thinking of using interwiki links on the user pages, but that might complicate matters. The current proposal is just that the user has to log in once the old way, and do the migration. What do you think about the interwiki solution? If a user has interwiki links common across all accounts, then all of these get migrated. The only problem is that it could be abused. Email address is another solution, and much clearer. I'll put it in -- Kowey 15:21, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
No I don't like that either. Too much possibility for abuse. Another idea, would be to have to list all the accounts that match the username to be migrated, and ask for a password to all of them. This way, the users do the work of the verification. The important thing is that no one gets my username :) Dori | Talk 15:24, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Effect on MediaWiki[edit]

What effect would this have on the MediaWiki software? What steps would those of us who want to run a private wiki have to take? --Phil 10:04, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'd assume that each mediawiki instance would need to have path to a common user database. If you have a private wiki, you could just set the path to something internal. Maybe the default behaviour would be not to have a common database, so somebody using a private wiki wouldn't have to do anything special unless s/he wanted a common database of his/her own. -- Kowey 14:42, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)