On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 8:35 AM, Aryeh Gregor
wrote:
> There's still the "Why can't I log in anymore?" problem. Sysops can
> currently block people, but at least they're told that they blocked,
> who blocked them, and why.
Yeah that would arise when somebody has been renamed without
requesting it
On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 9:49 AM, Charlotte Webb
wrote:
> So what's the difference, the number of edits? Maybe you could let
> regular admins rename the really common cases where some new user
> misspelled their namesake pokémon, or forgot to capitalize their
> surname, or included a swearword, etc.
On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 8:14 AM, Platonides wrote:
> And manual approval. 'niceuser' suddenly renaming itself to "Brion is a
> ***" is not good.
Well, neither is creating a brand-new account with that name and can't
do much about that except block the account(s), which is what would
happen in eith
On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 6:06 PM, George Herbert wrote:
> I agree that admins might not be necessarily trusted with permissions which
> would screw up site operations. We do no administrator ID verification, and
> the length and breadth of high load website operations/architecture
> experience is n
On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 7:29 PM, Platonides wrote:
> Any reason for not displaying an excerpt from the rename log for that
> user on login failure, much like on editing deleted pages?
That would be a sensible idea. In the overwhelming majority of cases,
either there'd be no rename entry or the lo
On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 9:51 AM, Aryeh Gregor
> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 12:01 PM, Robert Rohde wrote:
> > That said, I'm also not sure why we couldn't trust sysops with this.
> > Assuming the limitation is not technical (i.e. the servers won't
> > explode)
>
> I think Domas might have obj
Aryeh Gregor wrote:
> Also keep in mind that if someone is renamed without their knowledge,
> they'll be unable to log into their account. The error message will
> only say that the user doesn't exist, or -- if a user is created with
> the same name -- it will just tell them their password is wron
Andrew Garrett wrote:
> That rename is no more disruptive than some pagemoves with the same
> text, except, I suppose, that they would require a bureaucrat to
> reverse.
>
Which would make it significantly more disruptive...
--
Alex (wikipedia:en:User:Mr.Z-man)
On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 12:01 PM, Robert Rohde wrote:
> That said, I'm also not sure why we couldn't trust sysops with this.
> Assuming the limitation is not technical (i.e. the servers won't
> explode)
I think Domas might have objections if the number of renames suddenly
increased by a factor of
On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 8:47 AM, Robert Rohde wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 2:30 AM, Brion Vibber wrote:
>> MZMcBride wrote:
>>> Given that the Renameuser extension now uses the job queue for renames
>>> involving over 10,000 edits (and thus no longer locking the site for large
>>> renames), is
On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 2:30 AM, Brion Vibber wrote:
> MZMcBride wrote:
>> Given that the Renameuser extension now uses the job queue for renames
>> involving over 10,000 edits (and thus no longer locking the site for large
>> renames), is there any technical reason not to give administrators the
>
On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 1:14 AM, Platonides wrote:
> Brion Vibber wrote:
>> I'd much rather see a sensible system for self-renames (with decent
>> throttling, checks, etc)
>>
>> -- brion
>
> And manual approval. 'niceuser' suddenly renaming itself to "Brion is a
> ***" is not good. And bureaucrats
Brion Vibber wrote:
> MZMcBride wrote:
>> Given that the Renameuser extension now uses the job queue for renames
>> involving over 10,000 edits (and thus no longer locking the site for large
>> renames), is there any technical reason not to give administrators the
>> renameuser right?
>
> Renaming
Self-renaming would be great so long as appropriate logging was introduced
alongside the functionality. I don't think the main rename log should be
used, as at the end of the day these new usernames are not being endorsed to
be appropriate by a 'crat.
But yeah, sounds good.
- Chris
On Fri, Apr 3
MZMcBride wrote:
> Given that the Renameuser extension now uses the job queue for renames
> involving over 10,000 edits (and thus no longer locking the site for large
> renames), is there any technical reason not to give administrators the
> renameuser right?
Renaming a user who doesn't expect it
Hello --
Given that the Renameuser extension now uses the job queue for renames
involving over 10,000 edits (and thus no longer locking the site for large
renames), is there any technical reason not to give administrators the
renameuser right?
And, if there are no technical prohibitions, is this
16 matches
Mail list logo
