Wikipedia talk:Unified login

Initial post
Oops. Started this page as a typo redirect. Anyway, anyone want to discuss things here on en-Wikipedia (instead of at meta:Help:Unified login and meta:Help talk:Unified login), and discuss things before (admins only at the moment, apparently) creating your global account? Carcharoth (talk) 20:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * For now, it seems, initial discussions at Village pump (technical). Carcharoth (talk) 21:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The ippd coordinator for GES tamale metropolitan assembly is fisheini s Mohammed popularly know as santrofie .he's is a very generous man no body has ever heard of him being corrupt. Hehas four children Ibrahim, Abdul Malik Mariam and shahada. He is a very kind Muslim. Ibrahim brebre (talk) 06:40, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Other threads
In case anyone ends up here at this dead end... Carcharoth (talk) 09:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Racism is a discrimination against black people by white people Unathi majova (talk) 22:49, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Unathi MAJOVA is a sophisticated young man who comes from flagstaff pondoland Unathi majova (talk) 22:51, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Default
I'm sure I'Àve tewst user some boody linki thi asked this before but forgot, this is default for new users and grandfathered-in for existing users, right? If so, I'd like to mention that on the page. ▫  Johnny Mr Nin ja  04:26, 5 June 2011 (UTC)trech ″

Broken SUL
My Polish SUL login has somehow become corrupt.

When I go to Wikimedia's Help talk:Unified login page to discuss the matter, I get an error every time I try to edit that Talk page.

Whatever. Varlaam (talk) 21:01, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Proper Instruction
Why doesn't this document tell you how to get a unfed account. I want to know how to do this and found this page next to useless, it just links elsewhere but has no real purpose. Scottie UK 21:04 January 2013 (GMT)

Lack of transparency to affected users
Yesterday I was really, really angry. Today I'm more calm but still upset.

Yesterday I sent out a request for administrator help on my Talk page. (Click the internal link to read the entire conversation.) In short, I was shocked to receive an e-mail linking to a welcome message from a user at fr.wikipedia.org. The first thought I had was "oh crap, my account has been hacked!" as I had no recollection of creating an account on that wiki. After some experimentation, I discovered that changing the password on the French account affected my English account, realizing they were linked. "WHY was an account on the French wiki suddenly, without my authorization, being shoved down my throat?" I asked. Then others added their responses to my admin question, ultimately revealing some background scheme to unify accounts. But as part of the process: "Additional wikis will be added to the user's login the first time they are visited." WHAT? You've forced new accounts on logged-in users? What entity in their right mind FORCES someone to have an account, particularly without notifying them of the creation of the new account. Then I discovered, thanks to another user, that other accounts had been forced upon me too: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:CentralAuth/Lostraven.

My point-of-view: I can understand implementing wiki functionality changes without public transparency, but when an entity (in this case the Wikimedia Foundation) makes web changes at the account level or that affect accounts (which borders if not crosses over into privacy concerns), those changes, in my opinion, must be more transparent. 1. Why aren't accounted wiki users not receiving e-mails when a new account is automatically (against their wishes) created for them? 2. How come with the major account-level changes that took place with unified login users weren't notified? An e-mail or an automated message (much like the welcome message added to new accounts) on all user Talk pages would have sufficed. It could have explained "don't be alarmed when a new account is automatically created for you; it's part of our account-level unified login process."

To close, when you mess with a person's account, you're hitting close to home on privacy and security issues. Those sorts of changes and actions require more transparency and communication for affected users. From a data management and IT perspective, many would consider the lack of communication associated with such a change a boondoggle. I would ask the Wikipedia core to consider being more communicative to users when changes affecting accounts and security are made, particularly major ones. I personally find the idea of automatic account creation, without my authorization, unacceptable. But it doesn't sound like that's going to change. So I'm doing the second-best thing I know to do: ask for better, more transparent communication of such issues. --Lostraven (talk) 18:11, 29 March 2016 (UTC)


 * The unified login initiative has been underway for several years, and there have been numerous announcements about it on the village pumps, etc. Individual users weren't contacted about it, except when they were at risk of losing their username due to conflicts. The lead on this was, so perhaps he can provide further thoughts. –xenotalk 19:59, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * this complaint is about the fact that visiting another wiki while logged in creates an account for you on that wiki, a feature that has been in place since 2008 and was well communicated by email, village pumps, and talk page messages at the time. It looks like User:Lostraven only found out about it now because of global notifications. There is zero I can do about that. Lostraven, please read over Help:Unified login on meta to learn about your unified account. It will create an account for you on meta if you don't have one. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 21:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It looks like you've read over the Help page already, so there's nothing else to do here. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 21:06, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I was headed off to eat earlier and should have waited to post because I forgot to mention: automatic globalization for all users was done a year ago (almost to the day). This too was announced by email, through Tech News distribution, on Village Pumps, and various other channels multiple times. I'm not sure if a watchlist notice was set up, that would be at the discretion of English Wikipedia admins and I don't think it was deemed important enough. It was not feasible to directly email or leave automatic talk page notices for nearly thirty million accounts. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 00:48, 30 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Re: "This too was announced by email, through Tech News distribution, on Village Pumps, and various other channels multiple times" and "...and was well communicated by email, village pumps, and talk page messages at the time."


 * In my opinion, the admins need to ask themselves a question: who is the average Wikipedia user and how do they use it? Then I have to ask myself "do I represent the average Wikipedia user and how they use it?" Because you know what? I don't have an inkling what a "Village Pump" or "Tech News distribution" is, and I can say with certainty I've never received an e-mail from Wikipedia discussing this change. Those quotes... they're all gibberish to me. I log in, I make some edits to improve some articles, and I read some content. I'm not some power user.


 * As an aside, I just performed a Google search of "Wikipedia power users". From the second article in the results:


 * "Of course this assumes that the community of volunteers that actually built the encyclopedia and governing apparatus behind the encyclopedia, are nothing but the Most Highly Perfected editing drones created by their Bay Area masters — who hold all the cards and call all the shots."


 * and later...


 * "WMF hasn’t made any effort whatsoever to understand who these people are and how they are subdivided. There is much more they could and should be doing in terms of building databases of Very Active Editors and surveying their needs."


 * I'm not here to harp, though. I just want some higher ups to recognize that every editor isn't a power user. Most editors probably have no clue what a "Village Pump" or "Tech News distribution" is. (I sure don't!) Most are likely casual users who expect privacy/security-affecting decisions to land in their e-mail or as a message on their user account page, not some random place they have to actively go out in search of. OK, the automatic creation of accounts has been around until 2008. But guess what? It took 1. an unrequested account creation on the French wiki and 2. a person on the French wiki to send me a welcome message that 3. landed in my inbox for me to even remotely REALIZE that the wiki, without your permission, creates accounts for you on other wikis. Because I'm not a power user. Because I'm probably like 80 or more percent of the users of this wiki, who toodle along and occasionally do their thing, oblivious the the existence of any other communication tools they're apparently expected to know about. --Lostraven (talk) 16:16, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Hold on a second..."the average Wikipedia user" should not care that their account is global or local or finalized or whatever. The entire process is designed to be invisible, you create one account on a Wikimedia site, and it works across all Wikimedia wikis. Thinking of them as individual accounts that are automatically created doesn't really make sense in a fully-global world...there's just one account. How MediaWiki implements it really doesn't matter. Legoktm (talk) 02:50, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Dealing with links to user account pages for accounts renamed due to SUL conflicts
I was on Talk:Clive Wearing and realized that one of the contributors had her user account renamed from "Eleison" to Eleison~enwiki as part of single username unification.

Pages such as WP:REFACTOR are surprisingly silent on how to clean up after the mess. Was there ever a discussion on if references to user pages on talk and discussion pages should get fixed up to point at their new user pages? --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 20:01, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 22 August 2019

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Not moved &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 16:25, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Unified login → Help:Unified login – It is not a policy Pierpao (talk) 21:11, 22 August 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. —  Newslinger  talk   13:34, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Many pages in the Wikipedia space are not policies or guidelines. 125.9.31.50 (talk) 15:06, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - no clear reason why a rename is needed --DannyS712 (talk) 06:29, 7 September 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.