https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=23126
--- Comment #9 from Mike.lifeguard <[email protected]> 2010-05-03 20:17:52 UTC --- (In reply to comment #7) > (In reply to comment #6) > > The rewrite was intended to allow users to log in but not edit - to make it > > more analagous to a *b*lock. Automatic account creation should not be > > permitted, however. > > That's wrong perespective. The correct perespective is: automatic creation of > user account should not be harmful. At a minimum, when hidden or suppressed, it is! I'd argue (and it has always been this way until now) that locking should actually *stop* the user. (In reply to comment #8) > What if they had to appeal the block on meta and they didn't have an account > there yet? > There should still be some configuration option for allowing some wikis. Yes, well we want it to work as close to the traditional single-wiki *b*locking as possible. Add in all the normal block options and we'll be happy to set them as needed for the various cases: People who shouldn't be allowed to appeal their block can have a block option set to disallow editing their talk page. Users who shouldn't be allowed to create more accounts can have autoblock+disallow account creation set. Etc. However, since *l*ocking is at present used only for the most egregious cases, worrying about appealing these actions is not as high a priority as actually stopping the users we do lock. If you give us proper block options, we might be able to use them for non-egregious cases too - then we can worry about how users might appeal the blocks. Until then, we use this only for actual vandals etc and locking should be forceful enough to do that. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Wikibugs-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikibugs-l
