Last modified: 2014-01-27 19:19:22 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]]
I think this bug is duplicate of bug 4350
*** Bug 4350 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Would it be in order to have a flag which allows revisions by that user to be hidden also?
No. That's a whole other kettle of fish, and I don't think it's a road we want to go down.
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.
(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?
*** Bug 7212 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 9391 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
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!!".
One possiblity for casual hiding would be to add a global variable like $wgHideBlockedUsers to have blocked names hidden from listusers.
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.
(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.
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.
*** Bug 3521 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 10791 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
This is in trunk now, but the logging of such name hiding is not done yet.
This and required related things finished up as of r32685.
*** Bug 4415 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
