Problem: Recently, on meta, we have a couple of blocked users that will be undergoing a global ban discussions. This cause them needing to participate on talkpage for the global ban discussion, which then require people to transclude their discussions to the main page. This is also true for other communities where the discussion of blocked users for their unblock or unban will be either at their Arbcom pages or Admin noticeboard. They will either be given a chance to create an account to be used exclusively on the board or comments will be copied on talkpage. This isn't ideal as discussion continuity will be affected via the talkpage route or if it's the new account route, there is no means to prevent the account to edit other pages.
Who would benefit: Admins
Proposed solution: Since we have the partial block tool, why not allow us admin to configue the settings to make it block all editing except XXX pages (like an inverse checkbox) rather than the now (only block XXX page). I.e. an inverse partial block, setting exemptions to a sitewide block, rather than the current pages to block. This will be an added feature on top of the partial block tool.
Support It would be a nice complement to partial blocks if we could have partial unblocks. Someone is blocked but we can unblock them for this page. Seems like it shouldn't be difficult for devs to implement, as we already have the ability to do partial blocks, and have always had the ability to toggle talk page access for blocked accounts. ONUnicorn (talk) 18:07, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Honestly, I think the use-case here (allow folks to appeal through pages other than the user talk page) is better satisfied by allowing wikis to customize the "X" in "blocked people can still edit X unless an extra checkbox is checked" so that it's not always and only the user talk page. Say by creating a MediaWiki:Block-exemptpages with default content "User talk:$1" where one can add/remove additional pages where the exemption goes. The proposal here seems a little too complicated from an UI and back-end perspective. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:43, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I will think the Mediawiki based solution is even more complex as not all sysops know how to edit mediawiki space regexs well but almost all know the block interface. The use case isn't just appeal, it can be used for editing a certain page per their ban discussions or etc. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 13:09, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, if this is a sidewide measure, using mediawiki namespace might only be restricted to IAs. Even with that aside, this bad image list as well as other blacklists (spam / title) is to exclude someone from doing something, my proposal is different in which it is to only allow someone to do something. In addition, the common issues with such lists is there is a logging requirement, and the logs cannot be easier seen by other users and as clearly as a block log entry (i.e. one had to go to the archive, see what is the reason for this restriction and etc). This is why there is partial block in the first place where we can already ban users from certain page using a ban list (zh we had one - w:zh:WP:BANLOG ) or using an abuse filter. Anyway, I respect your opposition to my idea and welcome the suggestions, I know no matter of discussion can sway you as you seems very determined in what you say. I actually think your idea might be a good wishlist proposal, it's sad that you didn't raise this earlier or else we might combine both into one but now is anyway too late. I think we can agree to disagree in this. Thanks. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 15:47, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. In Portuguese Wikipedia, we hold unblock discussions outside of user space. That forces users to keep asking others to post their comments on unblock discussions, which is less than ideal.—Teles «Talk ˱CL@S˲» 16:03, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support On Persian Wikipedia, for example, the Supervisory Committee allows blocked users to create an account for opening a case, or asks administrators to block them from all namespaces except the project namespace so that they can use their own account. Neither of these solutions is ideal, and both can lead to confusion/drama. Ahmadtalk02:59, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Will also be helpful on other wikis that currently don't have any central unblock discussion page. They will need only 5 minutes to make one! — Meghmollar2017 • Talk • 07:06, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Would be very helpful on German Wikipedia, where we have a cental page for unblock discussion (de:WP:SP) Count Count (talk) 19:20, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
22:09, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Oppose Honestly, I think the use-case here (allow folks to appeal through pages other than the user talk page) is better satisfied by allowing wikis to customize the "X" in "blocked people can still edit X unless an extra checkbox is checked" so that it's not always and only the user talk page. Say by creating a MediaWiki:Block-exemptpages with default content "User talk:$1" where one can add/remove additional pages where the exemption goes. The proposal here seems a little too complicated from an UI and back-end perspective. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:43, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
