Talk:SUL finalisation

Community discussion of hierarchy for who has priority for a username
Where is it? If it doesn't already exist, why hasn't this already been done? This can be done now before the software is written, the scripts run, and the usernames changed. Risker (talk) 02:55, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You're one year late to the party: m:Talk:Single User Login finalisation announcement. There is m:Talk:Global rename policy in some activity now (you probably saw messages on local wikis by stewards). --Nemo 05:36, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay - so show me the hierarchy. Risker (talk) 07:42, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You asked a discussion, I linked it. Precedences for global accounts have already been set in 2008, see m:Help:Unified login. --Nemo 07:47, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * So in other words, no, there hasn't actually been a discussion with the community specific to the hierarchy of which of multiple accounts will get custody of a username that has actually come to any resolution. Nemo, you know this is what I wanted to know; it would have been okay to simply say "Risker, there is no hierarchy agreed to by the community, or even discussed or proposed to the community".  We both know that the software that will run through and change usernames to create SUL accounts needs to be programmed according to the hierarchy.  We both also know what happens when Engineering, in solving a technical problem, creates a social problen directly involving tens of thousands of users - in this case, potentially on every project, not just the noisy ones. Usernames are a big deal, and this is a serious editor retention issue.  This needs to be resolved. This is what they have their community liaisons for, to lead these kinds of discussions and obtain this kind of consensus.  Risker (talk) 08:01, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Nope. The hierarchy exists, this doesn't mean it wasn't discussed on the talks I linked. --Nemo 08:13, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Nemo, do you know what the hierarchy is? If so, please publish it or link to it.  Risker (talk) 15:14, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello both! Jumping in quickly - the Community Liaisons have a planning meeting early next week to begin discussing the communications plan surrounding this project. There will be hierarchy with clashing usernames, which we will be discussing with the community soon. We have a lot of work to do surrounding this change, and I admit I don't currently know all of the ins and outs of it, but I trust that I'll learn with your help :). Risker, absolutely, usernames are a big deal and something that we need to handle as sensitively as possible. More information coming soon. Rdicerb (WMF) (talk) 18:11, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello . I think the most useful suggestion I could give you at this point is to follow the lead of the Legal and Community Advocacy team in the manner in which they have handled large-scale discussions of global policies (terms of use, privacy policy, etc); they've got some pretty good practices, and there's no reason to re-invent the wheel. I know it is possible to run a script to identify how many users/which users have conflicting usernames now, although as I recall the last time it was run there were over 100K users involved.  From that list, it should be possible to run another script that will cross-reference to the "home wikis" of the users.  That can give you a list of wikis that you want to target with your messages/invitations to participate. In fact, gathering as much info as possible about the users who have conflicts and being able to present that information in the discussion will be useful, provided that it comes with a caveat that the number of users involved is fluid.  Things to consider reporting: how many users on various projects are affected; how many by user category (steward, checkuser, oversighter, bureaucrat, other permissions - there are a whole pile of them, autoconfirmed, editor, etc); number of editors affected in various strata of activity/inactivity (e.g., highly active, active in past year, inactive in past year, inactive in past 5 years, inactive more than 5 years, etc); your team can probably come up with a few other ways of slicing and dicing the affected users.  Ensure invitations go to every bureaucrat noticeboard/renaming noticeboard on every project. And so on. Risker (talk) 05:29, 29 June 2014 (UTC)