Let users edit longname and shortname without deleting

[infered5]

Let users edit long/shortname of entry without deleting node entirely.

Consider moving Longname/shortname from first paperwork blob to second, leaving first question only nodeID which never changes.

[tjpaulsondev]

Taking a pass on triage before touching code. After reading the codebase, I think the primary ask here may already be implemented and the issue is closer to a discoverability / paper-cut problem than a missing feature.

Primary ask: edit long/shortname without deleting

This appears to be implemented as !editnode <node_id>. See edit_node in MeshNodes/commands/NodeEditCommands.py. On invocation it:

1. Verifies the caller owns the node
2. DMs the user a button that opens a Discord modal with two optional TextInput fields (short name, long name)
3. On submit, runs UPDATE nodes SET ... WHERE UPPER(node_id) = ? and commits — no delete involved

The command has been in the repo since a5d65ea (2025-06-23), which predates this issue by about three months. A few reasons it may not have appeared to work:

• ! prefix not handled. !editnode !a20a1708 fails with "Node ID must be exactly 8 characters" because the input is 9 chars. This is the same class of bug I just fixed for !whohas in fix: strip leading ! from whohas node identifier (#12) #13. The fix needs to be applied to !editnode as well — I can do that as a follow-up.
• Discoverability. The README doesn't list commands, so !editnode is only findable via !help or the "node already exists" error from !paperwork.
• Owner-only check. If the caller isn't the owner, they'll see "You do not own this node." Admin bypass is tracked in Let admins edit all nodes #7.

Secondary ask: move longname/shortname to the second paperwork modal

This is a real refactor suggestion but it's orthogonal to the primary ask — it's about the layout of the !paperwork flow, not about editing existing nodes. It also overlaps with #3 (save paperwork entries incrementally to the DB), which is about the same modal flow's timeout behavior. If you still want this refactor, it would probably be clearer as its own issue focused on the paperwork modal layout (possibly bundled into #3's scope).

Question

@infered5 — when you filed this, was it because you didn't know !editnode existed, or because you tried it and hit one of the paper cuts above? Knowing which will determine whether this can be closed after the !-prefix fix lands on !editnode, or whether there's something I'm missing about the primary ask.