Last modified: 2008-10-19 18:47:55 UTC

Wikimedia Bugzilla is closed!

Wikimedia has migrated from Bugzilla to Phabricator. Bug reports should be created and updated in Wikimedia Phabricator instead. Please create an account in Phabricator and add your Bugzilla email address to it.
Wikimedia Bugzilla is read-only. If you try to edit or create any bug report in Bugzilla you will be shown an intentional error message.
In order to access the Phabricator task corresponding to a Bugzilla report, just remove "static-" from its URL.
You could still run searches in Bugzilla or access your list of votes but bug reports will obviously not be up-to-date in Bugzilla.
Bug 15841 - AntiSpoof should run checks at the global level
AntiSpoof should run checks at the global level
Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 15545
Product: MediaWiki extensions
Classification: Unclassified
AntiSpoof (Other open bugs)
unspecified
All All
: Normal normal (vote)
: ---
Assigned To: Nobody - You can work on this!
:
Depends on:
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2008-10-05 02:33 UTC by Mike.lifeguard
Modified: 2008-10-19 18:47 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

See Also:
Web browser: ---
Mobile Platform: ---
Assignee Huggle Beta Tester: ---


Attachments

Description Mike.lifeguard 2008-10-05 02:33:22 UTC
AntiSpoof would block the vandal "User:Something." from being created if "User:Something" already exists for example. But this only works on one wiki. Please make AntiSpoof run it's checks at both the local and global level to stop confusable global usernames. Kylu says this necessitates a whole new extension: "<kylu> you'd need a whole new extension to implement antispoof in ca"

One issue (there are possibly more):
 * Unifying manually where a conflict occurs. Most probably this should be permitted, since users merging accounts manually are probably OK.
Comment 1 Nobody 2008-10-05 02:38:04 UTC
I think this would make AntiSpoof require CentralAuth to be installed, if you simply modified AntiSpoof. You could test for CentralAuth, but it might be better to simply fork AntiSpoof instead into a CA-specific modification: This way, you have one codebase to test and not worry about if a fix to one side breaks something on the other. Bugfixes can be ported.
Comment 2 Fran Rogers 2008-10-06 07:17:52 UTC
A fork of AntiSpoof shouldn't be necessary - AntiSpoof could simply check for the presence of CentralAuth, and additionally run its checks against the global account list. A single codebase is a good thing :)
Comment 3 X! 2008-10-19 18:47:55 UTC

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 15545 ***

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.


Navigation
Links