Community Wishlist Survey 2022/Anti-harassment/Further interaction blockers.

Further interaction blockers.

  • Problem: Currently, in MediaWiki, it is possible to mute someone's mention, and to block someone from sending email to personal email account, however there are no ways to prevent additional user interactions, for example writing on user talk pages, editing userspace drafts, or be pinged or be quoted on Phabricator.
  • Proposed solution: It is desirable to 1.) enhance the muting in these aspects, and 2.) integrate options of different form of interaction blocking to a single one for easier control.
  • Who would benefit: All users with an account and participate in editing behavior.
  • More comments:
  • Phabricator tickets:
  • Proposer: C933103 (talk) 03:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC)


  • @C933103: It is currently possible for an administrator to block a user from editing a wiki (either specific namespaces or all pages), see mw:Help:Blocking_users. It is also possible to modify your Phabricator email preferences to decide when you get emails (see<username>/page/emailpreferences/). Are these satisfactory? Is there anything more you wanted? DWalden (WMF) (talk) 11:24, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
    Not really, as the proposal is to ask for additional ability on allowing users control who they do not want to interact with, as well as collecting these controls together in some accessible places like user preference, and neither of the two options can achieve this (they are either tools for administrators only or tools that do not focus on only some specific users. C933103 (talk) 21:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
    I would say this isn't really useful as it violates our Vision. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:40, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
    How so? Regards, HaeB (talk) 14:45, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
    For context, see the list of interaction types that the English Wikipedia currently considers as covered by interaction bans (which are aimed at reducing conflict between two particular users). Regards, HaeB (talk) 14:45, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
    Such suggestions are very like some years ago, German Wikipedia's suggestion that to automatically remove the "Thanks" log, then, not only that suggestion is rejected, but also results the first entry of Limits_to_configuration_changes#Prohibited_changes. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 12:26, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Is it actually desirable to enable muting? It seems to me that pervasive blocking features make social media a more antisocial place, because so many people block others for mere disagreement, or for calling them out for breaking rules or actual trolling etc. This will absolutely be abused. ··gracefool 22:01, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
    Most social media site allow users to block spam or harassing message at the same time the behavior is reported to platform administrators. I think it make sense that on non-content and non-public-discussion pages, parties with behavior who the user feel undesirable can block those on private pages. I am not and would not suggest this to replace the full interaction block as outlined in wiki punishment as that would also be impossible to enforce and hurt cooperation, however 1-to-1 interactions should be optional.
    If there are concern on system abuse by spammer who block people from warning them on bad behavior, then perhaps exemption can be created for administrators and bureaucrats and make them unblockable from such system.C933103 (talk) 14:59, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
    @C933103 That's why however we shouldn't do so on MediaWiki, as per w:WP:SNS. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 05:11, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
    I would like to add that my comment was about the model of which interaction can be deal with, not that Wikimedia projects should function like social media sites. As I have specifically suggested the limitation in scope of the wish.C933103 (talk) 13:01, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Question. Why do you want to reduce interaction in such form? There is a frustration behind this request that should be understood. What are the kind of contents you do not like to see? --Valerio Bozzolan (talk) 14:29, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
    It takes time for abusive behavior from one user against another on Wiki to be dealt with by administrator, and such tool would be needed by the target user to disable such sort of abusive behavior before administrators can finish processing relevant cases of abuse. Otherwise such form of abuse could continues until no ends. C933103 (talk) 00:04, 13 February 2022 (UTC)


  •   Support - STSC (talk) 04:57, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Explaned above, MediaWiki isn't a platform for transparency. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 07:49, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Only for Phabricator admins can block them from editing. You can contact other admins in wikis, or contact stewards at SRG. Thingofme (talk) 14:03, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support OwenBlacker (Talk) 21:57, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Reducing interaction reduces possibilities for community effort and consensus. Wikipedia is no one's private space. If someone violates rules, an admin can block them or restrict page editing.--Роман Рябенко (talk) 09:21, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support MW is used, among others, as a social network, so it needs to have a centralized interface and more configuration options for controlling potentially-disruptive interactions. François Robere (talk) 11:49, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
    @François Robere MediaWiki isn't a social network, please, don't be a jerk. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:36, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
    @Liuxinyu970226: I didn't say it is, I said it is used as one. Watchable user pages, pings and personal messages are characteristic of social networks, and editors do use them for social purposes in addition to "professional" ones. François Robere (talk) 11:04, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
  •   Oppose the most likely effect imho would be good faith patrollers being forbidden to leave their warnings in vandals'/trolls' talk page (in case sysops are block-exempt, which is not yet clear) --g (talk) 14:40, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
  •   Oppose If someone violates the rules, we have enough tools to react. This is useless if not dangerous as users before me already pointed out.--L736Etell me 15:02, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per L736E. --LittleWhites (talk) 15:15, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Роман Рябенко. --Phyrexian ɸ 21:13, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Роман Рябенко. --Sannita - not just another sysop 11:58, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
  •   Oppose --Havang(nl) (talk) 15:09, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per L736E. --Andriy.v (talk) 17:01, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
  •   Oppose as explained above. ··gracefool 22:01, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ciao • Bestoernesto 02:29, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
  •   Oppose This would enable users to prevent warning messages and other vital communications. Other editors would lose visibility that the editor had been disruptive. Harrasment should be dealt with directly, not by muting. SpinningSpark 12:15, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support Havarhen (talk) 08:48, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per above. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 11:57, 11 February 2022 (UTC)