Allow further user block options ("can edit XY" etc.)
Problem: Admins can only block users from editing any page at all (the one exception being that user's talk page). If a blocked user is given the right to edit on a specific page or specific pages, the block still has to be lifted completely. This could be confusing, as the community has still decided to block them from other pages.
Who would benefit: Administrators and blocked users.
Proposed solution: Create options for users to edit pages to appeal the block, edit or not edit certain pages or namespaces, or do certain actions such as registering an account, use email or upload files.
good idea. maybe add a possibility to block only specific namespace. For example block the main namespace but not draft namespace. - yona B. (D) 13:26, 15 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For some of my research into blocking tools, I've found several other requests for similar functionality to add extra levels of granularity into blocking tools. Here's a list of what I've found so far. I think this would be a very beneficial feature to explore/build. We'll need to decide how all of this is logged and stored appropriately. — Trevor Bolliger, WMF Product Manager🗨 18:56, 15 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We Steward often have problems with abusive uploads by accounts in specific ranges, for example filesharing on Wikimedia Commons through Wikipedia Zero. If we could disallow uploads for IPs or IP ranges, that would help a lot.
Further, we have trolls which only create abusive user names but rarely edit. At the moment, we can only full-block ranges when it would be more useful to only disallow account creations while users could still edit. Can you add that to this proposal, should I ask at #Specialised blocks, or should I create another proposal, Man77? —DerHexer(Talk) 13:12, 18 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
DerHexer: Please feel free to add further options to the list above, if you think it fits in here. For my part, I think that IP range block options could also be dealt with separately. However, the better strategy could also be not to atomize the proposals in order to get all the votes her ;) → «« Man77 »»[de] 14:00, 18 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I tried to make the change as little as possible. Are you okay with that? Best, —DerHexer(Talk) 11:34, 19 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Endorse I really don't want Wikimedia Commons to miss good quality images because a user misbehaves outside of uploading such as here. And for Wikipedia's this would be largely beneficial for the encyclopedia as most of the time content creators get banned not for bad edits in the mainspace but for insults and hot-headed debates in talk pages. --Donald Trung (Talk 🤳🏻) 09:20, 24 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also with this idea 💡 topic bans and interaction bans can finally be enforced. --Donald Trung (Talk 🤳🏻) 09:21, 24 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think that you can do this all using the abuse filter (called as edit filter somewhere), though it's not so easy for non technical users. Stryn (talk) 19:02, 27 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can the reverse of this happen? For example, X is blocked due to BLP issues, but their edits on dinosaurs are sound. So in other words, can X be blocked from editing all articles in Category:Living people, but edit other articles? Lugnuts (talk) 18:44, 4 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello all — This item did not make the Top 10 for the 2017 Wishlist, but the Wikimedia Foundation's Anti-Harassment Tools team is already looking into building better blocking tools in early 2018. Support for this proposal and the comments are already being taken into account. Read more and participate in the discussion at Community health initiative/Blocking tools and improvements. Thank you, and I hope to see you there! — Trevor Bolliger, WMF Product Manager🗨 23:07, 14 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nominal support, but Community Tech should not be working on this. Their resources are better spent elsewhere while the Anti-Harassment team tackles this. MER-C (talk) 20:52, 29 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support (a first step towards a namespace block, useful for when you'd need to force a user to temporarily work only in ns0) --g (talk) 23:48, 29 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support This would also help in handling users who showed selective problematicity on some arguments/articles while being good contributors elsewhere.--L736Etell me 07:34, 30 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak oppose unnecessary complication, I think that edit-protected pages and template editors at english wikipedia are already a complication, and adding fine-grained blocks is another even greater complication, instead we need better review system so that new edits and newcomers receive attention at the time they make their first edit. Add more volunteers who help with this process. English Wikipedia has not enough helpers and assisting persons and resolving this by fine graining the blocks sounds like an overkill in my personal opinion. --Gryllida 00:31, 4 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support: This would vastly improve our ability to deal with disruption but often-good editors we want to retain. It should be possible to a) block editors with a PoV problem from articles by name or by category; and b) unblock blocked editors for particular pages by name or category (including, e.g., ArbCom, ANI, and other dispute resolution pages, as well as selective content pages). — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 07:03, 4 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - Great idea!, I've seen it more than once on EN where an editor is blocked but they've been given the opportunity to comment for instance at Arbcom or ANI and have been told under no certain terms if they edit any other page they'll be blocked (rightly so) so having this would give those blocked the oppertunity to defend themselves or have their say - Ofcourse if they abuse it it'll be revoked. –Davey2010Talk 15:15, 4 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support as much as I believe editors should be mature enough to not require the community to babysit them, the reality is that some editors get indeffed because they cannot control a small aspect of their onwiki behaviour, while the rest of their activity is an asset. enL3X1 ¡‹delayed reaction›¡ 03:39, 6 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I do agree that certain users might be able to contribute on certain points, if not all Yohannvt (talk) 11:53, 6 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support. Basically we need anything between a full lock and a full editing. There are many possible options, including block from editing a namespace (e.g. user cannot edit templates), from editing a group of pages (e.g. user cannot edit articles about living politicians), from editing a specific page (e.g. user cannot edit a page where they were engaged in an edit war) or vice versa (e.g. user can edit only a specific page, which already happened in a real life case where a user violated rules but had to prepare a page of an offline event at the same time). Having at least some of these options would be a huge plus — NickK (talk) 20:21, 8 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Support; could replace "bans" or similar verdicts, that have to be monitored by all admins to be effective (unlikely), including those that were not involved in the actual discussion (most unlikely) He3nry (talk) 17:07, 11 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Reception123 (talk) 20:01, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Weak oppose unnecessary complication, I think that edit-protected pages and template editors at english wikipedia are already a complication, and adding fine-grained blocks is another even greater complication, instead we need better review system so that new edits and newcomers receive attention at the time they make their first edit. Add more volunteers who help with this process. English Wikipedia has not enough helpers and assisting persons and resolving this by fine graining the blocks sounds like an overkill in my personal opinion. --Gryllida 00:31, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
