Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Partial blocks: Difference between revisions

#'''Support''' the idea definitely makes sense for people who are causing disruption on a single page or a group of pages, e.g. edit warring on one article or breaching a topic ban on some page. As long as the disruption is limited there's no particular reason to prevent them editing the rest of the encyclopedia as well. '''''[[User:Hut 8.5|<span style="color:#FF0000;">Hut 8.5</span>]]''''' 17:51, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

#I can think of no use case where partial blocks would not create more disruption than they are attempting to block. The most common argument for them is edit warring, but here that's unlikely to be the  case: we currently are very generous on edit waring, and almost always unblock automatically the first time, that's unlikely to happen here, and if anything I think arguing on the talk page while unable to actually edit is just likely to make people more angry.{{pb}}Let's talk about the real problems, however: this is a massive expansion of the scope of administrator power in a way that can only backfire and destabilize the project. Currently, except in very defined circumstances, administrators cannot impose sanctions on individual editors and otherwise, they need to establish justification for a block. That would go away here. While this is billed as a less intrusive means of preventing disruption, what it instead is is a way to expand the scope of the limited mandate of admins far beyond what discretionary sanctions are. That is not healthy for the project, and is a reason to oppose in itself.{{pb}}Even if it were limited to DS areas, using it as a technical means to enforce discretionary sanctions would lead to wikilawyering and extreme drama in an area that needs no more. Topic ban enforcement this way would be a nightmare, and we do not need it.{{pb}}Finally, there's the elephant in the room: en.wiki already has a culture that privileges long-term disruption and where sanctions against people with friends are next to impossible. This would make that worse.  Blocks would be infinitely contested under the principle that the admin should have used a lesser option, and Wikilawyering will abound.{{pb}}Ultimately, all my points above come down to this: either someone is disruptive enough to be blocked, or they shouldn't be blocked. Anything else should be enforced via social means such as limited bans. A trial or second RfC are not solutions, because those are just ways to win support for something that could not pass on its own and that will not be reversed if implemented, regardless of how miserable a failure it is. We have the means to do that already. We don't need to create more disruption by allowing this unneeded bad idea on en.wiki. [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] ([[User talk:TonyBallioni|talk]]) 05:46, 12 December 2019 (UTC)