Last modified: 2014-01-27 19:19:22 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 6397 - Flag to mark accounts locked/hidden (aka remove/delete user)
Flag to mark accounts locked/hidden (aka remove/delete user)
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Product: MediaWiki
Classification: Unclassified
User login and signup (Other open bugs)
unspecified
All All
: Normal enhancement with 12 votes (vote)
: ---
Assigned To: Nobody - You can work on this!
:
: 3521 4350 4415 7212 9391 10791 (view as bug list)
Depends on:
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2006-06-21 20:11 UTC by Alex Schenck
Modified: 2014-01-27 19:19 UTC (History)
10 users (show)

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


Attachments

Description Alex Schenck 2006-06-21 20:11:35 UTC
This has been toyed around with in the past, but I would like to get something
solid rolling. All one needs to do is look at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Listusers to see that it is completely
useless. I am requesting a flag that bureaucrats can assign to banned or test
accounts (similar to the bot flag). The effects of such a flag are the following:

1.) Hides the account name from Special:Listusers (this is arguably the most
important)
2.) Prevents anyone from logging in to the account (effectively locking the
account out)

Thanks for looking,

[[en:User:Linuxbeak]]
Comment 1 Borgx 2006-06-22 00:46:34 UTC
I think this bug is duplicate of bug 4350
Comment 2 Rob Church 2006-06-22 10:19:09 UTC
*** Bug 4350 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 3 Phil Boswell 2006-06-22 10:24:26 UTC
Would it be in order to have a flag which allows revisions by that user to be 
hidden also?
Comment 4 Rob Church 2006-06-22 10:25:02 UTC
No. That's a whole other kettle of fish, and I don't think it's a road we want
to go down.
Comment 5 omniplex 2006-06-30 15:32:17 UTC
Please make sure that "invisible" users can't edit 
or anything else except from maybe changing their
preferences. The "invisible" special pages already
make me nervous. But getting rid of this !!!! crap
on en:we: would be really nice.
Comment 6 Rob Church 2006-06-30 17:04:20 UTC
(In reply to comment #5)
> Please make sure that "invisible" users can't edit 
> or anything else except from maybe changing their
> preferences. The "invisible" special pages already
> make me nervous. But getting rid of this !!!! crap
> on en:we: would be really nice.

Is that not implied with #2 of the original request?
Comment 7 Rob Church 2006-09-03 13:58:39 UTC
*** Bug 7212 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 8 Platonides 2007-03-22 21:14:03 UTC
*** Bug 9391 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 9 Aaron Schulz 2007-03-22 21:23:01 UTC
This is included in revisiondelete, which will be added in MW 1.11. HOWEVER, it
is meant to be used for libel/personal info, not just names like "Boobbss!!".
Comment 10 Aaron Schulz 2007-03-22 21:31:31 UTC
One possiblity for casual hiding would be to add a global variable like
$wgHideBlockedUsers to have blocked names hidden from listusers.
Comment 11 BD2412 2007-03-22 21:51:34 UTC
How about just automatically hiding all names that are blocked before they ever make an edit, 
for starters.  If someone is blocked without having made an edit, there's a pretty damn good 
chance it was because of their username.
Comment 12 Aaron Schulz 2007-03-22 21:53:48 UTC
(In reply to comment #11)
> How about just automatically hiding all names that are blocked before they
ever make an edit, 
> for starters.  If someone is blocked without having made an edit, there's a
pretty damn good 
> chance it was because of their username.

That would involve an expensive query. Simply hiding all indef blocked users is
probably the best option.
Comment 13 BD2412 2007-03-23 01:42:24 UTC
The reason I raised the idea is that we then do not have to worry 
about hiding edit records, because there will be none. But hiding 
all indef blocks is fine with me as well.
Comment 14 Rob Church 2007-04-02 07:02:57 UTC
*** Bug 3521 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 15 Rob Church 2007-08-03 19:09:25 UTC
*** Bug 10791 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 16 Aaron Schulz 2008-03-18 19:17:17 UTC
This is in trunk now, but the logging of such name hiding is not done yet.
Comment 17 Aaron Schulz 2008-04-05 01:14:57 UTC
This and required related things finished up as of r32685.	
Comment 18 Helder 2014-01-27 19:14:07 UTC
*** Bug 4415 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

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


Navigation
Links