Talk:Wikivoyage/Migration/New policies/Cross-identification of accounts

One of Hansm's points

One of Hans' suggestions for this policy was:

Every verification must be logged together with the diff link to the WT user page, the name of the user that has confirmed the verification, the name of the WV user that has claimed the WT account and a timestamp.

Where should this be done? On the (WT-xx) account? --Peter ^Talk 20:58, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

The theory is that the action that confirms that the accounts will be linked is sysop editing the WT-xx to make it a redirect to xx. The WT-xx page is otherwise protected, and remains so. The sysop who performs such edit is the verifier. They should record the evidence in their edit comment for such an edit, including the link where that is the evidence claimed. --Inas 06:09, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

As for the logging, I would prefer an extra request and logging page, e.g. something like WMF Migration/New policies/Cross-identification of accounts/Identification request. On this page, there is a table like this:

requesting WV user	claimed WT account	prove	verified by
Hansm 08:30, 13 September 2012 (UTC)	Hansm	diff
Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:06, 11 September 2012 (UTC)	Pbsouthwood	diff
Homer 07:06, 24 December 2012 (UTC)	Homer Simpson	mail to User:Peterfitzgerald

When an account verifier on WV has prooved the identity, he simply need to sign in the last collumn.

-- Hansm 08:30, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

That should work. I'd prefer very simple markup, though, instead of a table. Many (if not most) contributors are scared of wiki markup. --Peter ^Talk 15:19, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Start?

If this policy looks acceptable, I could get started and verify all the existing accounts for the sake of good form (which will be very easy to verify). --Peter ^Talk 20:56, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I did a sort of dry run. Does that look OK? It sets the bar very low for understanding of wiki markup, which I think is nice. If others want the table, though, let's do that. --Peter ^Talk 01:00, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Dry run looks good to me. Looks easy enough to use, which is important. Instructions at the top of the page would be good. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 06:14, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, simple wiki markup with sections is OK for me. Then, the Verify page still needs to be linked in a reasonable way from the policy page. -- Hansm 06:43, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Of course, and done. Should I move this into the main namespace now? --Peter ^Talk 14:06, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

It looks good to me. So who are the verifiers going to be? Any janitor? While the link remains on WT then it doesn't really matter, but if the link were to go, we'd want to make sure the verification was sound. --Inas 00:32, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

My thought was any janitor who volunteers on this page. --Peter ^Talk 01:16, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

If the edit has been imported from Wikitravel, no problem. In other cases, it may be a good idea to collect permanent links which won't disappear at some point. This page links a Wikitravel Shared account with two Wikimedia accounts (note the lack of links to other revisions: this is the only revision of the page), but won't help reconfirming if Wikitravel goes offline. For that, it may be better to do something like this to get a permanent link. Probably not a problem with ordinary accounts, but if there is a verification request from certain users such as IBobi, there might be a problem if the confirmation link stops working at some point. --Stefan2 14:24, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Stefan, I took a look at your link, and it looks like this could be useful, but it was not clear what we should actually do to create the webcite. Maybe I have just been editing too much today, but the instuctions were not very clear when I tried to work them out. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 16:43, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Cool site. For anything posted prior to th final WT backup, though, we do have records [1]! --Peter ^Talk 17:15, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

To archive a page, go to this page and enter the URL and an e-mail address. An e-mail will be sent to the e-mail address containing the URL to the archived page. I didn't realise that this edit predated the import. I placed similar comments elsewhere and I don't think those were imported.

To archive multiple pages at once, create an HTML file linking to those pages and upload the file here. It seems that Webcite only searches for the <a> tags, so you can probably leave out all other HTML tags. --Stefan2 18:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

... yes!

The Board of the association backs the way, how we want to cross-identify the user acounts. I would ask you to link your corresponding WV user pages on EVERY single WT language version you have contributed to. WT currently has no single sign on on their wikis. -- DerFussi 09:59, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm worried that that level of activity on WT might bother IB. Shouldn't it be possible to simply have a verified user on General (or their home wiki on Wikivoyage) link their various language version accounts? If they are already verified, we know that they are telling the truth. --Peter ^Talk 11:44, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Moving

Since this is an issue specific to the recently WT-imported versions, and not to the rest of WV—but also not specific to any one imported version, I think we should move it to wts. It obviously should also be moved out of the current "subdomain." Links would need updating. --Peter ^Talk 01:54, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Agree with moving it out of the subdomain.

No strong feelings about moving it to wts. As links would have to be updated anyway, it's about the same amount of work. What will happen after migration to WMF? Will it make any difference then? • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 08:03, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I think go ahead and move as you see fit, then strike from the cleanup 'to do' list. I think people using the system is fair evidence that they accept it. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 16:12, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I think it may be time to move WMF Migration/New policies/Living persons out of subdomain too. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 16:28, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Done. --Peter ^Talk 18:00, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Confusing instructions

The "How" says "just log on to wikitravel.org and post a link on your user page to your new user page on Wikivoyage". So there must be a prior step that is not mentioned. Should it be "First create an account at en.wikivoyage.org" or should it be "First create an account at www.wikivoyage.org" or should it be something else? Nurg 02:14, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Logging on to wikitravel.org implies that you have a user page there. There would not be much point in cross identifying a non-existent account. Also implied is having an account at wikivoyage.org, for much the same reason. However it would probably be better to clarify this in detail, particularly for those for whon English is not a home language. It should also be explained that any account in WT can be cross-identified with any account on WV, not just on en:, general: or wts:. As far as I know, once registered on WV your account name automatically works across the various WV sub-domains, but maybe someone more technically knowledgeable can confirm this. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 05:45, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

email doesn't work any more?

> You can log on to wikitravel.org and use their email service to contact an administrator on Wikivoyage through their previous account. For example: Wikivoyage User:X is an administrator, and has cross-identified his/her account here with User:X on wikitravel.org. Log on to wikitravel.org and then email Wikitravel User:X to confirm your identity.

Just tried to email User:Peterfitzgerald / User:Pbsouthwood / User:LtPowers from Wikitravel, but for none I can see a "Email user" link in the toolbox sidebar. Am I missing something? --DenisYurkin (talk) 20:25, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

WT Edits mentioning WikiVoyage are being blocked

As a note, userpage edits at wikitravel which contain the word "wikivoyage" are being blocked as harmful.

Oblique mentions work fine, though. --Peter ^Talk 05:52, 18 January 2013 (UTC)