https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=44759
--- Comment #18 from Robert Horning <[email protected]> --- (In reply to comment #15) > (In reply to comment #14) > > > This software change request does not exist in some kind of MediaWiki > > conceptual vacuum. > > Umm, that's exactly where we are right now. This is a conceptual request > because there is an idea of a possible software feature ("marking blocks that > were made in error") that doesn't have a clear implementation strategy. > The "clear implementation strategy" was discussed in the Village Pump thread. What is proposed is a MediaWiki software change to replace the "1-second block" with something that simply adds a line in the block log with administrator comments.... that can be used for anything including explaining that previous blocks were done in error. It could insert a link to a larger discussion or even a URL. The goal to this request is explicitly to avoid marking a bad block by performing yet another block on the user. It is possible that one way to implement this is simply to treat 1 second blocks as administrative actions and to not have them be displayed formally as a block, but instead to have any commentary listed explicitly as an annotation. In other words, it would be mostly a redesign of the user interface that the administrators view when looking at user information. That seems like a very minor and mostly cosmetic change to MediaWiki, but I would hope that those who maintain the software would offer feedback on this issue. What I really don't understand is why this request will be completely ignored and admins encouraged to used the kludge which is the 1-second block. IMHO this is a bug, even if it is a cosmetic issue rather than a major functional problem. Regular users of MediaWiki software (on en.wikipedia.... the highest profile project using this software) have suggested a change, which is what this request is all about. There might be other ways to implement this as well, so feedback is certainly requested. That a feature like this may be of interest to administrators on projects other than en.wikipedia is also further justification for raising this here. Besides, changes done because of issues raised by users on en.wikipedia have often been beneficial to other MediaWiki users. That is furthermore why I think discussions of cleansing block logs after five years (or some other very arbitrary time span) or anything else tangential really is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. The main issue at hand, to cut to the chase, really is about a way to express from one administrator to another that a user block was done in bad faith or in error. Sometimes through either neglect or simply human failings the unblock action is insufficient to accommodate this explanation. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug. You are watching all bug changes. _______________________________________________ Wikibugs-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikibugs-l
