Wikipedia talk:Partial blocks

Redundancy

I feel this essay should be a policy proposal. If partial blocks is enabled, then it will need to be written into policy. If there's a policy then an essay like this is redundant. Speaking of which, I think this page (so far, and possibly in the future) is just reproducing the blocking policy. It might be useful to workshop some phrases on a page like this, but I hope it's not a long term situation. It is always going to be tempting for people to write up a whole separate complex policy page, with infinite details and clauses, repeating many of the principles written into the well-established blocking policy, when it could probably all be fitted into literally one or two lines of the blocking policy. I'd urge everyone involved with this to avoid policy and page, or more generally instruction, creep. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:23, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

@Zzuuzz: I intended for this to develop into the partial blocking policy, as and when it happens. It's an essay because it isn't policy yet, not instructions or so. --qedk (t 桜 c) 14:54, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I note that User:Davidwr upgraded the notice at the top of the page while I was writing the above comment. I believe that Template:Draft proposal (or related) might be the template you're looking for. I stand by my other points. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:01, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

That's probably more appropriate, thanks. --qedk (t 桜 c) 15:06, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Banning

I disagree that the statement in the draft that partial blocks are different than banning as it's a confusing comparison. Blocks are a tool to enforce editing restrictions, also known as bans, whether it's a partial block or a site block. Issuing a partial block is enforcing an editing restriction. isaacl (talk) 21:18, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Partial blocks can be the technical implementation of something that is not a site ban. The comparison is necessary namely due to the block vs. ban scenario, one is technically implemented while the other is not. --qedk (t 桜 c) 15:54, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I know; I should have said that the bare sentence alone isn't sufficiently illuminating. Adapting the full corresponding paragraph from the blocking policy page would be preferable. (As I indicated elsewhere, personally I think the details of partial blocks should just be incorporated into the blocking policy page, as partial blocks are a subcategory and the general principles behind the blocking policy remain applicable.) isaacl (talk) 17:22, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Comment on discretion

While the proposal passed, there is still a strong contingent on projects where it has been enabled that don't like using them. I'll proudly say I will not use the feature once on en.wiki because I consider it to be the single worst technical idea we've ever had and think every single use will create more disruption that it was designed to protect against.

Any policy on this needs to make clear that administrators can use these at their discretion and are still able to use full blocks if they think them better. The last thing we want is someone wikilawyering over an edit warring block that they should have just been blocked from the page. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:14, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

As far as policy is concerned, the same guidance for using full blocks to prevent disruption remains in place, and so there shouldn't be any immediate change. Community norms might change over time, though, regarding the use of a preventative full site block versus a preventative partial block. (The basis for community-imposed editing restrictions hasn't changed, and so there would be no reason to change from a site ban to a topic ban, for example, just because partial blocks are now available.) It's hard to predict how that may unfold. isaacl (talk) 23:32, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

MERGETO Wikipedia:Blocking policy ?

To avoid duplication, etc - I think this should just be merged in to the sections of Wikipedia:Blocking policy once anything outstanding is fussed out - any thoughts? — xaosflux ^Talk 14:51, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm in favour of that. As I mentioned above, I think this page might be useful for now, both to provide a quick explanation of the new concept while everyone's wondering wtf, and to work out any 'fussing' in the wording. But in the near to medium future, sure. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:54, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

This page should be used a supplementary page to describe the use-cases and technical aspects of the partial block tool. The Blocking policy should continue to govern. – bradv🍁 20:32, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm mostly OK with that as well - but keep all the "policy" stuff in one place (what admins MAY or MAY not do for example). — xaosflux ^Talk 20:48, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Right now this pretty much is an information page, with the policy questions being referred to the blocking policy. If that were reversed, we would need to copy over sections about evasion and enforcement, COI, cool-down blocks, block logs, retaliation, block requests, unblock criteria (wheel warring etc.). It's far easier to update the necessary bits of the blocking policy, if there are any. – bradv🍁 21:08, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Agreed that it should supplement BLOCKPOL, I have no opinion on whether content should be duplicated (a lot of content between policies are already duplicated, but it's helpful to have redundant information than not have it). Per my comment on the RfC talk page, since the consensus was for a "new partial blocking policy", we should probably keep it as-is, keeping in mind that BLOCKPOL is the policy, the new policy will supplement. The current page reads just fine and does not have instruction creep that BLOCKPOL currently has, ideally a better version that sticking in partial block tid-bits into the current policy. --qedk (t 桜 c) 21:06, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

QEDK, I haven't read through the RfC as thoroughly as you have - are there any parts of the blocking policy that actually need to change in order for partial blocks to be used? I get that some of the descriptive bits may need to be updated, but are partial blocks actually against policy right now? – bradv🍁 21:10, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

@Bradv: I do not think there is conflict with the current blocking policy, the sections that would need to be updated would be Unblocking conditions and Enforcing bans and updating BLOCKPOL in a way that reflects partial blocks are an available tool for administrators to use, in lieu of site-wide blocks. The latter point is where I think the main issue lies. --qedk (t 桜 c) 21:16, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

QEDK, okay, I think we're on the same page then. So a few simple updates to BLOCKPOL (which should be uncontentious as they're really just explanatory) and we're off to the races. And this page already provides a good overview of the relevant issues, from what I can see. I suspect most of our policy questions are going to be uncovered as we start using this tool. – bradv🍁 21:24, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

@Bradv: and "policy" sort of statements on this page should just refer to the blocking policy to avoid forks. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:04, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

As I stated above and at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Partial blocks § Discussion prompt added to WT:Blocking policy, I agree with merging this to the blocking policy page. It is useful for all the different blocking options to be covered within the framework of general principles contained on the blocking policy page. isaacl (talk) 23:49, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Case study and messages

Okay, I don't know who else has done a partial block yet, but I felt that Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Krish990_and_User:Payalmishraa_reported_by_User:Ravensfire_(Result:_Partially_blocked) was a good case for using it - a long-time slow-burning edit war between two people who are not disruptive elsewhere but have continued to revert each other despite other editors reaching out. A full block would have been overkill and full protection would hurt other users.

In the long-term, we're going to need some sort of pro-forma message like Template:uw-block and descendents. I don't think that template is suitable; because while the user can appeal the block, they don't need to necessarily do so on their talk page, plus any indication on the article's talk page that an agreement is reached could result in a request to lift the block. We will also need to update Template:an3 so incidents at WP:AN3 (which along with ANI is IMHO is the most obvious place we're going to require partial blocks) to include "partially blocked" or "blocked from the article" as parameters. And all of that will need integrating with an update of Twinkle. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:14, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: I had almost forgotten about the templates. I will make some mockups and see how that goes, keeping it simple seems to be ideal. --qedk (t 桜 c) 19:03, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

See {{Uw-pblock}}. --qedk (t 桜 c) 19:26, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

@QEDK: not sure how many flavors we want - but note that pblocks can be placed that have no impact on "editing" at all. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:34, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: That's true, I considered that block notices are probably more appropriate for editing-related pblocks, but that would change the overall structure of the template, suggestions? (A simple email parameter if comes to mind). --qedk (t 桜 c) 20:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

 Implemented --qedk (t 桜 c) 12:52, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Another thing to add would be namespace support. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:55, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

@Amorymeltzer: I implemented it first and realised the options are too many to accomodate separately. Twinkle can simply make one string from the type of block made and attach it to the |area= parameter. --qedk (t 桜 c) 20:01, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I can imagine more flexibility being desired down the line, but probably alright for now, especially as there's just the one! ​​Is it worth adding a |accountcreate= or something as well? The logic with email will get out of hand quickly, but someone could be blocked from just account creation I think. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:08, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

​That's true, but introducing a chock full of options into the template is (sure-shot) shooting ourselves in the foot. The current idea is: 1) if editing pblock (with any other kind of pblock), then show it as editing pblock and allow everything else to be shown with the |area= param. 2) if just email, use |email=. When introducing the new parameter, we are presented with two more interesting combinations: just email with account creation and account creation only. Hopefully, I'll brainstorm something over the next day or so. --qedk (t 桜 c) 17:49, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Exactly; a right pain with templates. I think a solution used by other complex templates is to cast them as 1/0 then check the sums? Or Lua, I suppose... At any rate, outside of the account creation option, {{uw-pblock}} is pretty good atm AFAIAC. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:34, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Case study (2)

As a case study, Ritchie333 implemented a partial block [1] (also raised at ANI by Ritchie333 for other reasons [2]), the partially blocked user then continued the same line of editing on a different article. Now the edits were pretty close together, and they didn't get notified about the ANI thread until after the edits, so the editor might not have known they were partially blocked when making the other-article edits. I'm guessing partial blocks are only obvious when trying to edit the partially-blocked article? –xeno^talk 17:13, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

I see a handful of other partial blocks in place right now that I wonder if they should have just been regular blocks. –xeno^talk 17:13, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

A WP:BLOCK is not a WP:BAN and vice-versa. On the other hand, knowing you are blocked "puts you on notice" that related behavior is disruptive. Basically:

If a person is making disruptive edits in violation of a ban or other "socially enforced" sanction, enforce it with technical means if necessary, such as a full block.

If he's making disruptive edits but there is no current sanction preventing him from doing so, treat him as you would a non-blocked editor who had received as many warnings or notices about the behavior. This may mean more warnings, it may mean taking it to a discussion page, or it may mean modifying existing blocks or adding a full block, depending on the circumstance. I expect most cases would result in that page being added to his current partial block AND a discussion opened to determine if he should be topic-banned.

If the edit is NOT disruptive, consider letting it pass. If it's not disruptive but you think it's a case of the editor "testing the waters" consider not reverting the edit, but politely reminding the editor to "keep it to non-controversial edits" if he does not want to be blocked or banned from editing that page or similar pages.

Each case will be somewhat different. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Templates related to partial blocks

#Case study and messages above already mentions Template:uw-block and its decendants and Template:an3.

We also need a template so page-blocked editors can request an edit, something something akin to Template:Edit extended-protected.

Are there other templates that are needed? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:38, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Template:edit request really should be improved for general requests. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:24, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

An editor with an editing restriction, be it a site ban or a topic ban, isn't permitted to ask other editors to make edits in the restricted area. The introduction of partial blocks shouldn't change this policy. isaacl (talk) 00:00, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

@Isaacl: a block is not a "ban" or an "editing restriction". — xaosflux ^Talk 00:03, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

A block is a tool to enforce an editing restriction. Otherwise the block is unnecessary. Now an editor could be restricted to only using talk page requests to change a page. However I don't see a need for that editor's request to be prioritized over other requests that could be made, and so I don't see the need for a corresponding template. isaacl (talk) 00:06, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

@Isaacl: "editing restriction" normally has a very specific meaning. Most "blocked users" are not considered to be "under an editing restriction". — xaosflux ^Talk 00:09, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it is true that editors who are blocked due to immediately disruptive behaviour are not generally referred to as being under an editing restriction; I should have said "editing restriction or to prevent immediate disruption". Even in this scenario, I don't believe someone who has been disruptive should be given a way to give greater prominence to their edit request (assuming the imposed sanction permits one) than the other editors of that page. Let the edit request be made in the normal way on the talk page. isaacl (talk) 00:17, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

@Isaacl: yes I agree! Problem is we don't really have a "edit request" template except for unprotected pages, except for the one that says it is because of a COI. My suggestion was to make that one just be generic instead of only due to COI reasons. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:36, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

The thing is it would only work if there were a way to distribute the requests, and that would likely require a more active WikiProject network than exists now. (I don't even think the conflict of interest request system works all that well.) isaacl (talk) 00:46, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

User:AnomieBOT/PERTable and the others are one of the least backlogged things on the backlog. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:49, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I was thinking that there would be many more across all articles than just across protected ones, but maybe not. However, it's a lot less likely for there to be simple "make change X" edit requests; most are going to be discussions about possible changes. I don't think handling through a central queue is the best way to manage these discussions. Interested editors should be allowed to investigate and pursue the discussion threads they wish to. So I don't think an alerting system is a great idea for editors who have been mandated to use talk page requests to propose changes. isaacl (talk) 01:03, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

@Isaacl:Editors who have page-related editing restrictions that are enforced by a page block should be allowed to make a talk-page request for an edit that they would otherwise be allowed to make under exceptions to limited bans. In addition The blocking policy already says that blocks are supposed to be preventative not punitive. In my mind this strongly suggests that if an editor is page-blocked for a specific reason, he should be free to make talk-page edit requests that are clearly outside the scope of that reason. For example, if someone repeatedly violates an active page restriction imposed under ARBCOM-athorized "discretionary sanctions" is blocked for that reason, he should be free to make a talk-page edit request for any edit that is not remotely related to the discretionary sanctions. Of course, making edit requests for edits that do violate the reason for his block are disruptive and may result in stronger editing restrictions, possibly enforced by a block on the talk page as well. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 15:29, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Sure, as I said, if the sanction permits a talk page request, the editor should be able to make one in the same way as all other editors can open a discussion on the page's contents, without giving the request greater prominence. isaacl (talk) 15:55, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Blockedtext-partial

Do you have a great idea how to redesign this message? Thanks. 70.138.211.34 (talk) 01:00, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Changing that interface is outside the scope of this talk page. I'm not sure where the best place to discuss "core" interface designs like this one is, but it is probably somewhere on MediaWiki. In particular, this is an english-language version of the same interface at MediaWiki which is documented here. Can someone more familiar with WikiMedia's change process reply so this editor can go to the right place to ask his question? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 15:54, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

@Davidwr: They can be changed by int-admins, Xaosflux is one. They are changed by consensus or at the discretion of int-admins as well. The correct page would be the talk page, but to gain consensus, this page or the RfC talkpage is ideal. --qedk (t 桜 c) 17:50, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Yup, you can have the discussion anywhere, even at MediaWiki talk:Blockedtext-partial - just advertise it to places people who might care about it would see it. Us int-admins will normally make cosmetic changes with little discussion, but may push back on certain changes if it will have some undesirable technical impact. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:18, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Any sysop can edit the page in question, as it's not a javascript or CSS page. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:52, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Doh, I've been working all the edit requests today and got mixed up here! — xaosflux ^Talk 20:13, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I was fairly certain admins could and I read up on intadmins for it to specifically state they can edit MW-space, turns out you should read the fine print afterall. --qedk (t 桜 c) 20:19, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Mo hats, mo problems ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:17, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Feature should include categories

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T190349

In addition to a ten article/page limit, partial blocks would be more effective if they included categories such that blocked users cannot edit any pages in that category or any of its subcategories.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:05, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

@Berean Hunter: that is not currently available, it is being looked in to at phab:T190349 - read the discussion there. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:35, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Partial blocks noticeboard

Since Wikipedia:Partial blocks/Noticeboard was part of the RFC for a couple of weeks before it was closed, albeit without any comments either way, I added it to the instructions. I also modified {{Uw-pblock}} and asked Teahouse volunteers to watchlist it. The intent is to save admin time by having possibly less stressed community members explain to blockees what they are doing wrong, to not get in the way of presumably higher priority unblock requests from the fully-blocked, and prevent situations where a reviewing admin might not have all the details that the blocking admin considered, which seems to be a perennial source of friction among admins. EllenCT (talk) 08:14, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Blocking people from editing articles from a certain Wikiproject

Is it possible if we could consider this? ミラP 17:51, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

@Miraclepine: this is very unlikely to occur as is, but could possibly be done if phab:T190349 moves forward with a "list block", of course that list would need to be maintained as allowing anyone to block others by just putting a talk banner on an article talk would be excessive. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:55, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Partial blocks of administrators

In the "Technical considerations" section, this bullet point does not appear to be supported by the cited Phabricator discussion:

Partial blocks of administrators should be avoided, as the blocked administrator will no longer be able to access the block interface for any editor other than the admin who issued the block.

References

The Phabricator ticket states that the partially blocked administrator cannot block any user, and does not mention an exception for the admin who issued the block. Should this text be amended, or am I missing something? — Newslinger talk 11:06, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Administrators can always block their blocking admin (this was intended as a safety latch to bring wheel wars to a standstill), I don't know if there's an exception for partial blocks, though. --qedk (t 桜 c) 12:58, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

I added that line because there is currently a bug affecting administrators who are partially blocked, preventing them from blocking or unblocking other users. They should only be prevented from modifying their own block. – bradv🍁 15:19, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for answering! The situation makes sense considering both of your responses together. — Newslinger talk 21:21, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Partial blocks of pages within specific categories

Would it be at all possible (or feasible) to place partial blocks on pages within a specific categories? For example, could a partial block be used on Category:Living people so the blocked user/IP can't edit any BLP articles? I can see it being helpful in enforcing topic bans. -- LuK3 (Talk) 02:38, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

@LuK3: Hello. This request has been brought up a few times in the past. There are some major technical challenges with doing this. Like, what happens if pages are added or removed from a category? Someone could use a sockpuppet account to remove a page from a category and then be able to edit it. Or what happens if a category has several nested categories? Should the user be banned from the sub-categories too? There's also technical limits on how many pages one can be banned from. We are going to investigate this work soon and see what we can come up with. If you're interested, there's some discussion around this on phab:T190349. -- NKohli (WMF) (talk) 06:48, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Talk pages

A question has arisen over partial blocks.

If a user is partially blocked from an article, does that include by inference the articles talk page?Slatersteven (talk) 12:34, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider that a given, no. It's possible they've been explicitly directed to suggest changes on the talk page by the blocking admin, for example. –xeno^talk 13:48, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

OK, cheers.Slatersteven (talk) 14:02, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

And from a technical perspective, these have nothing to do with each other. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:52, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Well it seems I am not the only user confused by this, maybe we do need to make it clear in black and white.Slatersteven (talk) 15:03, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: what part of the text on Wikipedia:Partial blocks do you think is misleading? Keep in mind that just like regular blocks, they are only an enforcement mechanism and should not be confused with bans or editing restrictions. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:03, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Not misleading not clear, I was under the impression that "specific pages" usually meant the article and its talk page (maybe the issue is not here so much as this elsewhere then). I am not sure it is made clear anywhere it does not.Slatersteven (talk) 16:17, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: I added information at Wikipedia:Partial_blocks#Technical_considerations - does that work for you? — xaosflux ^Talk 16:46, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

OK, cheers.Slatersteven (talk) 16:55, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Do pblocks cascade?

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T242670

Having seen a recent comment "I'm more likely to grant you a page block from the permission pages than to grant you..." brought back a question I can't see an answer for.

Would a pblock on Wikipedia:Requests for permissions cascade to the individual request pages (Special:PrefixIndex/Wikipedia:Requests for permissions) (using just 1 pblock) or would it be necessary to block all the individual request pages (using all the available pblocks)?

I don't want to experiment if someone else has already done so. Cabayi (talk) 20:14, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

@Cabayi: No, it does not. You'd need to do individual ones since the blocks are title-based. --qedk (t 愛 c) 20:19, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

QEDK looks like a bummer. I am not an admin, but regex page blocking would be something WMF could work on... Aasim 21:49, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Edit filters can do that. Galobtter (pingó mió) 22:05, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

But undesirable for blocking individual accounts. There's an extension which does this partially, mw:Extension:RegexBlock (regex on the account name, not the page) but it's old and not WMF-supported. It's a good starting point, I'll drop a note to Niharika. --qedk (t 愛 c) 07:51, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

This appears to be the change requested in phab:T242670; I don't expect we would need to do much anything here locally - it will likely become a blocking feature for all projects or it won't - suggest anyone interested comment on that task. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:09, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Partial blocks from the user namespaces

I just warned a user that I'd block them from the User and User talk namespaces if they didn't stop messing with other people's pages.[3] But could I do this without blocking them from their own userpages, which I wouldn't want to do? Bishonen | tålk 06:56, 30 October 2021 (UTC).

Update. Well, I kind of saw this coming: I have indeffed the user for sock puppetry, disruption, you name it. I'd still quite like to know if it would be possible to except a user's own pages from a User and User talk namespace block. It may come up again. Bishonen | tålk 09:55, 30 October 2021 (UTC).

@Bishonen: blocking someone from the user namespace includes their own userpage and userpage subpages; blocking someone from the user_talk namespace blocks them from their own user_talk subpages, but not their base user_talk page, that has an override unless you also include the "Editing their own talk page" in the block parameters. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:16, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

I see. OK, that seems good, that would work well in most cases. Thank you, Xaosflux. Bishonen | tålk 15:21, 30 October 2021 (UTC).

@Bishonen: I supposed you could open a feature request to add a whitelist to the partial blocking interface, but that system is already kind of complicated so not sure if anyone would take it up. Something along the lines of another line EXCEPT: (page) (page) maybe. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:28, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Existing editing restrictions

At Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Partial blocks#Should partial blocks be used to enforce editing restrictions? the consensus closed by User:JJMC89 was that "Existing editing restrictions should not be converted to partial blocks without consensus to do so". I agree with this that prior editing restrictions even if they can be 100% enforced (such as a topic ban from the template namespace meaning a partial block from the template namespace) I agree if a user was given such a topic ban in 2018 and they hadn't violated the ban (or at least not since partial blocks came in) there would be no reason to retroactively block them from the template namespace without consensus and such a block would prevent them from reverting vandalism per WP:BANEX and would not seem needed to prevent further disruption. If such a user was given such a topic ban in 2021 then I agree (though not a must) than this can be enforced by a partial block though it would still prevent reverting vandalism per WP:BANEX. If on the other hand someone was topic banned from the template namespace in 2018 and violated it today it would be reasonable to apply a partial block in that case since previously it would probably have been a sitewide block. I propose changing the text in the footnote "Existing editing restrictions should not be converted to partial blocks without consensus to do so." to "Existing editing restrictions should not be converted to partial blocks without consensus to do so or violations after partial blocks were implemented.". Maybe the last part can be worded better but my main point is that they can still be used instead of sitewide blocks for violating older editing restrictions. Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:50, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Regarding this edit: the added text, which differs from the proposed text in the original post, sounds like it is referring to violations of an editing restriction after a partial block has already been enacted for the person in question. This contradicts the first part of the sentence, though. On the broader question, personally I don't feel that the text suggested in the original post is needed. By default, any new violation can result in an admin deciding to enact a new restriction such as a partial block, in situations where there is a clear policy allowing the admin to impose a block on their own initiative. isaacl (talk) 20:28, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Comma splice aside, this edit keeps the (misspelled) word "enectment" and adds two more instances of "enacted", so it doesn't address the confusion I pointed out. To me, the word refers to the partial block already having been enacted as a sanction for the person in question. I understand that's not what is intended to be conveyed, but that's how it reads for me. isaacl (talk) 20:39, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Isaacl: I've worded it better about restrictions that are violated after partial blocks were enected can be dealt with partial blocks even if the editing restriction was enacted before then as long as the violation was after partial blocks came in and note to avoid giving the impression of my text being from the RFC I added it after the footnote citing the RFC. The idea behind the consensus at the RFC (which I completely agree with) is that if someone was say topic banned from the article Water in 2018 it would not be nessesarry to prevent further disruption (and would be unfair on the user) to block them from editing the article Water when partial blocks were enected in 2019 howver in 2020 if they violated the article ban they could be blocked from the article "Water" instead of being sitewide blocked. Are you OK with my modified wording or do you think it needs changes but in terms of consensus my suggestion has been left unopposed for nearly a year. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:45, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Lack of comment doesn't mean there is consensus for your change, and since I am now objecting, I would prefer that the change be reverted and discussed. I think an additional violation in 2020 is a reasonable trigger for a new sanction to be applied, without any additional text needed in the footnote.

I'm sorry, but your changes are still using "enacted" to mean when the partial blocks feature was made available, and I think this is confusing. isaacl (talk) 21:15, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

OK I've reverted pending discussion here. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:24, 16 August 2024 (UTC)