Last modified: 2013-06-14 21:22:52 UTC
Here is the current Special:Block wording: Block user Use the form below to block write access from a specific IP address or username. This should be done only to prevent vandalism, and in accordance with policy. Fill in a specific reason below (for example, citing particular pages that were vandalized). Prevent account creation Automatically block the last IP address used by this user, and any subsequent IP addresses they try to edit from Watch this user's user and talk pages What Special:Block needs to mention most: Upon blocking, the user will no longer be able to *edit* any page[?] including his own ... . He will still be able to *read* ... He will no be able to send ... etc.
OK it mentions 'write access' but that's not enough details. This is a serious action, so all ramifications need to be listed.
For instance Facebook blocks are different than MediaWiki blocks, and MediaWiki has less users, so the onus is on MediaWiki to explain its different kind of blocks in more detail.
http://www.facebook.com/settings?tab=blocking shows the level of detail needed. P.S., You need a Facebook account in order to see that page.
I'm not sure why you are comparing to facebook here?
I am worried that since so many people use Facebook, they might somehow think the block involves read access too, so you need to spell out clearly what MediaWiki blocks entail, before the user click Submit.
Removing "the most important stuff" from the bug summary as it's subjective and not descriptive. Also see https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/How_to_report_a_bug Looking at http://www.facebook.com/settings?tab=blocking I see lots of things: "Restricted List", "Block users", "Block app invites", "Block even invites", "Block apps".
btw. [[mw:Manual:$wgBlockDisablesLogin]].
This is silly. Saying 'write access' is enough. We should not have to clarify some things because another popular site works differently. Administrators in MediaWiki are expected to have a good idea about what a block does before they create one.