Wikipedia:Blocked users can edit their own talk page

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

When a user is blocked from contributing to Wikipedia, they used to be completely blocked. This was a problem, because sometimes they might be blocked accidentally (or even for an incorrect reason).

A recent patch to the MediaWiki software continues to prevent a blocked user from editing Wikipedia, but creates a lone exception. If your username is Floob, you can edit user talk:Floob even while you are blocked.

Here's a tip: while blocked, try explaining some of the good, helpful things you plan to do for Wikipedia as soon as you're unblocked. Such a strategy is likely to reduce your block time.

Another tip: abusive comments about others, on your talk page, could prompt an admin to "protect" your user page, cutting off all further communication. So think before you post.

Names in italics are merely quotations of your position and might not "officially" count as representing your real position. Please sign with tildes to confirm / clarify.

Tally (12/6/2)


  1. Support. Let's try it for a couple of weeks. I think we can make it work. Uncle Ed 17:16, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Support. User pages are quite easy to simply ignore. SimonP 17:19, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Theo encourages the blocked user to communicate openly
  4. Stormie a good idea and well worth a trial. It makes much more sense (to have) dialogue ... on the user's talk page ... than on the mailing list.
  5. Mark will help to stop WikiEN-l from turning into IDemandYouUnbanMeNow-l
  6. David Gerard OH GOD YES PLEASE ... Particularly as we're having to block a lot of querulous rubbish from the blocked to keep the list readable.
  7. Catherine the wiki page history preserves evidence of behaviour, good or bad. the wiki page history preserves evidence of behaviour, good or bad.
  8. Noital [ If this feature were in existance, I would not feel helpless when abused by Admins.#
  9. Support, based on comment by Dan100. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 22:34, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
    You don't think justified complaints should be brought to people's attention then? Dan100 (Talk) 11:16, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
  10. Support, best that users have a public, on-Wiki way to communicate instead of having to send an email. I see very low potential for abuse. However, admins should be licensed to protect a user talk page if they see fit. Nickptar 19:08, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
  11. Support. This keeps channels open. How can that be a bad thing? Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 23:31, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
  12. Support. For reasons above. I'm also not so worried about angry blocked users letting out some steam there, either. It's a natural thing to be upset over being blocked, and wikipedia keeping a page open for them to complain and explain their side makes the block seem less ..uhm... arrogant in my oppinion. It's polite and inviting to not shut someone completely out. Shanes 01:03, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  13. Support. I frequently find myself blocked for sharing an IP with a vandal. It would be nice to have some avenue of recourse within Wikipedia. Agentsoo 10:12, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  14. Support. Good idea. Andre (talk) 20:43, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
  15. Support. Strongly. I find the objections illogical and the benefits obvious. There is no possible harm. Let people have more room to rave, vandalize and abuse on these pages. Where is it better for them to do it - there or on Wikipedia? Their time and energy is not infinite. Every second they spend explaining how right they are/decorating/vandalizing on their talk pages is one less spent creating sockpuppets, vandalizing the main space, etc.. I predict that if this feature is enabled, and people have the common sense to leave people to play by themselves alone except in the very most extreme cases that vandalism and admins workload will measurably drop. People say this might make these spaces become toilets. Good. The reason for this change is identical to the reason that (public) buildings usually have toilets too - it is a much better idea than the alternative.--John Z 22:36, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
  16. Support, since "wikipedia is not a dumpster" is not a good enough reason for me (we've all seen wikimedia pages et al. being used for A LOT of stuff - how is a user page or two going to harm us?). --Dungo (talk) 18:22, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
  17. Support, as blocked editors should be able to say something to the community even though they;ve been blocked. Take DrZoidberg's talk page for example, and you can see how useful this feature can be. — Stevey7788 (talk) 04:01, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  18. I've got a great idea! Why don't we block people we don't like except to let them use their talk page. It doesn't matter if they've done nothing wrong, we can just accuse them of being sockpuppets or something for which they can't prove their innocence. If they kiss our ass on their talk page and pledge their support for whatever we, as administrators, think the content should be, we can let them continue editing there. But if they dare to mention that they've been blocked for no reason, we'll simply lock their talk page and threaten anyone who tries to help them. To show how effective this scenario is, SlimVirgin has given us a demonstration with User:EKBK (contribs). Let's all give User:SlimVirgin a big round of applause for demonstrating how to effectively use administrative power to control the content of discussion and articles. As an added benefit, we can accuse the patsy of being a sockpuppet of another administrator or editor that we don't like!! --Zephram Stark 21:31, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  19. Support. This gives the blocked user an outlet to explain their actions, comment on the block, and have open discussions with other users so they won't make the same mistakes again. I don't see any harm to it, as user talk pages aren't generally accessed by the non-contributing public. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 06:06, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Support Per all. --GorillazFanAdam 00:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


  1. Oppose. [2] SlimVirgin (talk) 17:07, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
  2. CesarB [3]
  3. Netaholic I just don't understand the change
  4. User pages aren't a particulary viable way of highlighting just concerns, but they could become toilets for crap about "abusive" admins. Just don't think it's a good idea. Dan100 (Talk) 21:01, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  5. Oppose in the strongest possible terms. This "feature" is about as useful as an electric bidet; just more work for admins who have to go clean up the mess the vandals cause. If they were blocked, they shouldn't be editing anything, and if it was accidental, then they can email the blocking admin. -- Essjay · Talk 00:26, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
    The only mess they can make is to their own user page or own talk page. We could just ignore that. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 00:36, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
    I was thinking of users like User:Jackson Brown who caused a lot more trouble than he would have been able to if he hadn't had his talk page to play with. -- Essjay · Talk 00:41, July 26, 2005 (UTC)\
    I don't think his talk page was protected. I'm going from memory here but i thiught he was persueded to stop rather than forced via page protection. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 23:03, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
    Wikipedia:Protected page#User talk pages and [4], so yes, it was protected. --cesarb 23:11, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
    LOL what an idiot I must be to not remeber that I was the one who unprotected it! Anyway my basic argument remains intact. He was persuaded rather than forced.Any the only trouble he caused was on his talk page, which is easily to just ignore. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 06:51, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
    I still agree with cesarb: "a brain damaged misfeature." (I was particularly pleased with my electric bidet simile, but oh well.) -- Essjay · Talk 08:36, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
  6. Oppose Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:34, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
  7. Oppse If they want to redeem themselves, they can e-mail the admin who blocked them. Ryan 10:08, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
  8. Didn't notice this poll until now. Anyway I don't particularly think this is a good idea; established users know how to contact the Powers That Be by e-mail or IRC, so they don't need this trick. Regular trolls and vandals only use this trick to troll or vandalize further. Radiant_>|< 14:47, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Neutral / Other

  1. depends on the user
  2. Most admins are abusive because most people don't like to work for free. Abusing your power is the whole benefit. I'm an admin here (posting this anon on a different IP) just letting you know that if an admin wanted to abuse it, they would lock the edits on someone's user talk page and erase complaints made by user. I, as an admin here, ban people who disagree with my point of view. It's how it works. I have flaws and have found much worse in others so the only way to communicate with someone safely during a ban is email. I profusely apologize if I've upset you, but this is the truth. I am an admin and you must know how things work.
    I obviously can't read proposals. As Noel pointed out, I didn't get the point of the vote. Mea culpa. I dunno, on the ANI a case recently came up where, among other things, the user's page was tagged with Template:Impostor. Obviously, a blocked impostor would still be able to edit that page and remove the tag, which could be confusing and dangerous. Other useful templates (sharedip, for one) would similarly be less useful if the blocked user could remove them. --DropDeadGorgias (talk)
    Good point, but according to the description at the top of this page, they could only remove it from their Talk: page, not their User: page. Noel (talk) 22:04, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
    Impostors' talk pages should be protected when they're blocked, then. Nickptar 20:52, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
...especially those pesky imposters who want to prove their innocence on their own talk page. --Zephram Stark 04:20, 1 November 2005 (UTC)