- the affiliate is in charge of the internal process to define an endorsement. You can take a look at the other endorsements approved by other affiliates.
- the person who should put the endorsement on the meta should be a primary contact or the official voter. It's possible to link to meta pages or external affiliates website with more details about the choice.
- Please beware that it's very difficult to erase an endorsement because of the tight schedule. it's also a problem for candidate since the threshold is rigid. Please be very careful on your endorsement and try not to change them. it would be useful to contact the facilitators before doing so.
- Or "Because of the great disruptions that it could cause, it would be improper for an affiliate to withdraw an endorsement. So please be deliberate when making endorsements."
- Fine with me, what about "Please beware that because of the great disruptions that it could cause, it would be improper for an affiliate to withdraw an endorsement. So please be deliberate when making endorsements and contact the facilitators if you have any doubt about this scenario"
Future steps of the SUL
I tried to ask one preliminary question about suckpuppetry here but I received the standard copy-and-paste-from-guideline answer, the one people say when they don't want to say something that is uncorrect, and it wasn't very helpful. I've also asked in some personal talk with little success. Than I moved to Keegan's talk: here is a summary so far with further developments.
In the timeline of SUL we are currently focusing on the goal of unification of the accounts (and the relative search for additional global renamers). We should consider that after this step is completed, other issues need to be addressed, namely those more related to the "social" aspects. We simply can't keep the technical and social aspect totally separated, because we are after all a community. In some cases local policies are unclear, in other cases they differ sharply and in the new, finalized SUL world there are unexpected ramifications to the global accounts trying to act at local levels. These policy conflicts might be worth discussing. Even if we don't take sides on any particular issue, we have to put forward some examples.
Possible issues include:
- regular sockpuppets (i.e. secondary nicknames). They could be geared under some sort of general coordination as well, but the situation seems quite confused. With a SUL a definition of "evil sockpuppetry" should be unambigous. SP account is de facto global when you create it, and "acceptable" reason(s) for which you may need it are in theory quite similar for every platform.
- there are special users who have the power to create a lot of accounts in a small time for wikipedia trainings or classes. This is also something that hasn't been fully "standardized" within the SUL process. It should be a flag given at a global level.
- use of "role accounts". When de:User:Company is not allowed to be en:User Company in the global world, we've lost in a way the whole point of tying accounts together. User:Company should be so all around.
- some SUL includes local wikimedia chapter wiki (e.g. Brasil), whilst some national wikimedia websites are not integrated in the SUL system (e.g. Italy). Is there a plan to integrate them or this will never happen some day? Are new wikimedia websites by default integrated in the SUL system (if there is legal issue, of course) or not?
- with the expansion of meta-levels and knowledge of foreign languages, local "infinite"/indefinite blocks do not play anymore the role they had years ago.
- 1) Which SUL "functionalities" should be disabled and which ones shouldn't after a local indefinite block?
- 2) How can a infinite block coexist with acceptable behaviour on other platforms on the long term? Which local wikis are willing to reconsider discussing the removal of local blocks for globally active users, and which one are not? if users wish to apply in a public wayfor a removal of a local block, at the same they wish to respect the block itself, should a meta page be avialable at least to start the procedure?
- 3) How does the information about possible critical behaviour circulate if, in case of local block, the user is active cross-wiki?
- 4) On-demand local blocks seem quite bizzare in a SUL perspective. Are they possible on all the local platform? Should users who voluntarly ask to be blocked locally, at least directly specify if they want to be blocked at the global level? Should a local "self-ban" be requested directly at the meta level?
- There is no clear information about the MediaWiki:Titleblacklist concerning acceptable name. Local wikis Titleblacklists are not even cross-linked via wikidata (May 2015), it is not clear how this type of information is or will be upgraded to the global level.
- is there any way to link a bot to the user(s) gearing it? Should we put a limit of bot per SUL user? Should we assume that a bot account approved on a local wiki should be by default the only account which should be authorized in other wiki to work as a bot, even a local authorization is required?
- should user accounts and "legal" sock-puppets (and bots) with one specific master all have the same email contact? Should an email contact for users who don't have just one account be compulsory?
- Should SUL on the long term lead to the introduction of additonal fields such as additional contacts on IRC and other social platform (the one we sometimes write in our profile on one wiki, not another), centralization of some self-declared personal information (language babel) etc? that's not a problem of armonization of previous platforms strategies, and there is no way it is urgent now, but we should realize that the social aspect of the unified infrastructure has effect on new, possible, unforseen scenarios in the future.
- usurpation discussed here
- deal with dead user (and block of account). Link discussion on commons.
How to discuss
Some of these issues should be considered critical by the majority of the wiki users. Once the situation has stabilized, we could isolate some of them if there is agreement that a meta-wiki strategy is possible. We need at least some default positions for new wiki projects, before they mature their own vision of the topic, but we need something; it does not matter if it is a starting point or the "least common multiple" of all the local tendencies, it is just a void which need to be filled, whatever scenario prevails in the future.
Where such a discussion and possible coordination should begin if thy take place? Where have people discussed so far the long-term "consequences" of the SUL?
Standard procedure with these scattered issues should be: start a thread in the central "forum" or "village pump" ("request for comment" ) and link it from every other related page (i.e. talks of Global rename policy, Global renamers, Single_User_Login_finalisation_announcement, Help:Unified login. SUL finalization talk page... ).
Main self-declared goals: 1) initial brainstorming 2) define any other relevant related issues 3) decide together the place where this should be centrally addressed in the future. The discussion can be moved from the village pump to the new talk page once finished.