Last modified: 2012-11-03 19:20:17 UTC
Bureaucrats should be able to rename users to a globally-reserved (ie unified) name /only/ if the accounts belong to the same person. This should use the same logic as merging accounts (Checks password and/or email, IIRC. Change summary as required to fit what it actually does.). In cases where that logic would require the user to enter a password, the rename should be aborted. This ensures that 'crats never unknowingly give the account to someone else. (Better would be the user is actually asked for the password on their next pageview - if successful, 'crat is notified the rename went through; if unsuccessful the rename is aborted and the 'crat is notified of this. But that is probably very difficult.)
I disagree that it should be only if password/email match, since email isn't always set and password can't be always matched. But we should probably improve warnings so bureaucrats will know that they have to confirm users' identity by themselves
Well /some sort/ of check akin to what is done when merging is really needed. But until that can be done, a warning to 'crats that they must confirm this is definitely needed!
Isn't the current confirmation message enough?
(In reply to comment #1) > I disagree that it should be only if password/email match, since email isn't > always set and password can't be always matched. If the user has access to the account, they can always change the password/e-mail so they match. If they don't have access to the account, bureaucrats should not have the ability to give them access. That has historically been a privilege reserved for sysadmins, which is the narrowest possible group that should have it, and it needs to remain that way barring higher-level discussion. The status quo allows bureaucrats to take over any unmerged account, or more to the point, give it to anyone who asks. I think this is definitely a bad thing that needs to be changed ASAP; bureaucrats do not need this right and should not have it. Brion, what do you think?
> (In reply to comment #1) > The status quo allows bureaucrats to take over any unmerged account, or more to > the point, give it to anyone who asks. I think this is definitely a bad thing > that needs to be changed ASAP; bureaucrats do not need this right and should > not have it. Brion, what do you think? > I am more concerned with /inadvertently/ giving away access. Unless one knows better, it is perfectly reasonable to assume that the system is doing verification backstage.
(In reply to comment #4) > The status quo allows bureaucrats to take over any unmerged account, or more to > the point, give it to anyone who asks. It does not. Newly-renamed account is unmerged, therefore it may not access attached accounts. The largest problem rename may cause is a conflict between two account.
Oh, I take it back then. This would be good to have, but not a bug, I agree.
