Relevant clause:
- "There are options to exclusively block a user from the Discussions forum or editing specific pages—however, full sitewide blocks should be used instead of partial blocks. A block's duration can be changed at any time using Special:Block and can be temporary or permanent."
- First SH: Forum:SH:Partial_blocks; most comments were regarding just Discussions-bans
- But actually, its not just editing pages/Discussions, instead the list is:
- Uploading files
- Renaming pages
- Creating new pages
- Sending thanks
- Discussions
- And for the above, to specify pages and namespaces applicable
This rule was implemented shortly after the feature became a thing. But, it keeps popping up in casual chatter, at least several times to my knowledge, that maybe it's not the best approach. Blocks, at least by Wookieepedia's definition of it, are preventative, not punitive. The original SH focused heavily on the "well, if someone was banned for Discussions-abuse, then of course we should ban them onsite too?" But... the tool wasn't entirely understood for all of its capabilities, as it's more than just Discussions vs. editing bans. If someone is repeatedly uploading files and say, falsifying their sources, as has happened historically, but they otherwise make good edits, then surely we could block them from uploading files for [a limited period] to prevent the behavior in question.
Now, whether partially blocked users are still vote-eligible is a different thing, since current policy just collectively uses the term "blocked" with no distinction between blocked and partially blocked (don't really care so long as consistent). But either way, it's a topic that seems to come up in chatter time and time again, at least among admin discussions, as something that should at least be case-by-case, a rare feature, but not a disallowed one. To the point of the prior SH; if someone does something blockable on Discussions, then it's very valid to say, like, well they should just be blocked on the wiki too; we've sought to treat the two as one community. But the same SH also expressed some openness to considering this feature for editing-related functions (uploading, renaming pages, creating...), which is my focus here. Because, they can be useful for quick 3RR chill-outs to have folks clear their heads, in the rare but still persistent cases we get users edit-warring on a specific page. Could just block them from editing [that one page] for a day or two, rather than the entire site, if they aren't responding to warnings but also may not yet know they have a talk page where messages are left for them.
Also... (lol) just under half the users who contributed to the first SH are now permanently banned themselves, plus a few who've permanently left, and those of which were, to some degree, very fond of punitive bans. So it's at least worth starting a renewed discussion for current community feedback on whether we can lift the prohibition on some of the editing-based features.—spookywillowwtalk 04:34, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
Discussion
- Absolutely something we should consider and, in my opinion, implement. There have been a significant number of users throughout the years who have proven themselves to be not malicious in their intent, but have repeatedly been unable to follow certain policy elements, usually around upload or page creation, and it keeps happening to the point that we as administrators have no choice but to block them. And thus the site loses out on those users’ other beneficial contributions. Having the ability to block problem users from the particular features they use incorrectly would be extremely beneficial to both the administration and the community as a whole, as it gives us avenues other than straight up blocking them. Cade
Calrayn 04:48, 24 February 2025 (UTC) - Agreed. Imperators II(Talk) 07:26, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
- ^^ OOM 224 10:54, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
