Those pages are public. They could use them as platform for their arguments even if they are blocked.
This is a WONTFIX for me.

dasch wrote:

well if they do so the pages could be closed specificly or maybe this pages schould not be public. But for me there is not reason why a blocked user has no possibility for changing his displaying-options

mike.lifeguard+bugs wrote:

(In reply to comment #1)

Those pages are public. They could use them as platform for their arguments
even if they are blocked.
This is a WONTFIX for me.

NO, the talk page serves that purpose!

happy.melon.wiki wrote:

(In reply to comment #3)

(In reply to comment #1)

Those pages are public. They could use them as platform for their arguments
even if they are blocked.
This is a WONTFIX for me.

NO, the talk page serves that purpose!

"NO" to what?? The talk page is one platform for blocked editors to communicate on-wiki. If enabled, these pages would be another. Are you saying that that's not true, that that's a bad idea, or something else? Please clarify.

mike.lifeguard+bugs wrote:

I'm saying Platonides' rationale is incorrect. (It also happens to be a bad idea, but being wrong is sufficient for now)

Precisely, we shouldn't open those additional pages.
Protecting the talk page is one action. Protecting any .css/.js subpage he may want
to create is not.
There would also be issues if his .js were included by third users. But using javascript
from an untrusted user is always unsafe.

happy.melon.wiki wrote:

Indeed; I kind of took it for granted that Platonides was saying that it should be WONTFIXed *because they could become* unwanted platforms.

Are you saying that we *should* open up these pages, Mike, or are we actually all singing from the same songsheet here?

If an editor is blocked, they cannot edit. Period. We make an exception to user talk pages so they can retain a method to appeal a block.

I don't really agree with the "could be another soapbox" argument, but I certainly agree with the suggestion to WONTFIX this. Marking as such.

dasch wrote:

Well that's a little bit to fast for me.

The thing is, that the .css and .js are some kind of settings. Is there any argument why a user should not be able to change his settings while he is blocked? When the personal .css and .js are blocked so the settings should be blocked too.

happy.melon.wiki wrote:

Yes: the ability to do anything on a wiki is a privilege, not a right. If a user doesn't want to lose the ability to edit their settings, that user should not get themselves blocked. If there is something they desperately need or if the page is broken, they can ask an admin to change the page for them. Or use browser styles.

ayg wrote:

I agree with the logic of comment #9, but these are public settings that can contain arbitrary text, so they're somewhat different. Also, if we whitelist User:Foo/*.{css,js}, then they could just create unlimited pages and admins would be unable to stop them. Currently admins can shut up abusive blocked users by protecting only their user talk page, and this would make that more difficult or impossible.

Overall, the idea is nice, but I don't think this feature is worth the complications it would cause. If a blocked user really wants custom CSS/JS, they can use their browser's support of that, if applicable. Or maybe create a new account to view with and not use it to edit, if possible. Or ask an admin, as Happy-melon says. I don't think we need to go to great lengths to make this possible. So I agree with WONTFIX.

I don't have a problem with users changing their settings while blocked, but I don't think that it's a good idea to be making exceptions to the "no editing pages when you're blocked" rule because a particular edit could be considered editing settings.

dasch wrote:

I think that is something that should be kept in mind. For example the creation of a new account is not always a solution. For example with a global account you have to login to the wiki your are blocked with another account just to have the abillity to have you're styles. And the go to antoher wiki and have to login with your other account. That's not really a solution.

By the way some users are getting blocked by purpouse because they to not want to edit, but maybe the need there styles for reading and it would be very complicated to always ask an admin to change their styles.

It should be considerd that editing and reading are two different things and personal styles are also mostly for reading and not for editing.

(In reply to comment #13)

By the way some users are getting blocked by purpouse because they to not want
to edit but maybe the need there styles for reading and it would be very
complicated to always ask an admin to change their styles.

That's just stupid.

Replace .css subpages with [[Stylish]] [2] and .js with [[Greasemonkey]] [2].

You don't need to create accounts, remember passwords or copy the styles on each wiki.

1- https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/748
2- https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/2108

dasch wrote:

so the solution for this bug is to force everybody to use firefox and install this extensions?
Sorry, but: "That's just stupid."

mike.lifeguard+bugs wrote:

(In reply to comment #7)

Indeed; I kind of took it for granted that Platonides was saying that it should
be WONTFIXed *because they could become* unwanted platforms.

Sorry, I was reading things as being opposite. Platonides is correct & the I'd consider changing MediaWiki as requested to be introducing a bug.

(In reply to comment #16)

so the solution for this bug is to force everybody to use firefox and install
this extensions?
Sorry, but: "That's just stupid."

No, not everyone, just the tiny minority of users who are blocked and want to be able to change CSS/JS but aren't willing to contact an administrator.