[Foundation-l] Fwd: Wikimedia-wide global blocking mechanism?
andrew.gray at dunelm.org.uk
Fri Feb 1 19:00:51 UTC 2008
On 31/01/2008, Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Would logging it in the local block-log system be an
> > acceptable method of notification?
> I was more thinking first about a notification that
> this ability even *exists* before addressing
> notification individual blocks. However regarding
> individual blocks what language are you proposing the
> local log entry be written in?
It's sort of half a solution. The "entry" is pretty much translated
for you - it's the message that's the problem.
Let's look at two logs, frwp and dewp, to demonstrate what I mean:
1 février 2008 à 11:47 DocteurCosmos (Discuter | Contributions) a
bloqué « 22.214.171.124 (Discuter) » - durée : 1 jour (utilisateurs
anonymes seulement, création de compte interdite) (Vandalisme)
11:46, 1. Feb. 2008 Sinn (Diskussion | Beiträge) sperrte
„126.96.36.199 (Diskussion)" für einen Zeitraum von: 2 Stunden (nur
Anonyme, Erstellung von Benutzerkonten gesperrt) (Unsinnige
Bearbeitungen eines anonymen Benutzers von dieser IP-Adresse)
Everything in there, except the comment ("Unsinnige..."), is generated
automatically - it's MediaWiki taking internally stored data and
displaying it here in French, there in German. So the *log entry* per
se is going to be comprehensible ("X was blocked, four days") - it
means there will be something there, even if we can't leave a coherent
How to do the comment is, of course, a problem. What do stewards
currently do *now* in this sort of situation, where they don't speak
the project language but have to step in? English? A guess at what
language is most likely to be understood by the local community?
The URL of a specific meta page about sitewide blocks might be a good
idea - we can concentrate translations there, and it means that any
particular block can run with a single comment without having to adapt
for each project. And a URL as a summary is pretty clear for "go here"
> Seriously make a system to handle these blocks and
> require every wiki wishing to join the system file a
> bug and things will go much more smoothly. If the
> stewards find they are doing tedious manual blocks on
> a certain wiki, they can encourage the that wiki to
> file the bug.
It really depends what we're looking at this to do - if it's mostly
for the benefit of the small wikis without heavily active communities,
to protect them against passing vandalbots, it seems to me that
opt-out is better than opt-in, simply because of the difficulty of
getting every project organised to say "yes, we want this" - a problem
which will be most grave for the smallest ones.
On the plus side, though, I think we both agree that some kind of
project-by-project ability to not be included would keep people happy
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray at dunelm.org.uk
More information about the foundation-l