:That sounds good. If we follow the supporters, we should implement partial blocks because they support them. If we follow the opposers, we should implement partial blocks to test their theory. - [[User talk:Alexis Jazz|Alexis Jazz]] <sup><small>ping plz</small></sup> 18:02, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
:That sounds good. If we follow the supporters, we should implement partial blocks because they support them. If we follow the opposers, we should implement partial blocks to test their theory. - [[User talk:Alexis Jazz|Alexis Jazz]] <sup><small>ping plz</small></sup> 18:02, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
* {{Comment}} I see partial blocks as a first-time solution. For example, I think a user involved in many edit wars should be blocked completely, not partially. In some cases, a new user gets into an edit war and does not stop. In such cases, I prefer a partial block over a full block. Another case can be an experienced user edit warring for the first time beacuse they've lost their temper over a real-world issue related to the subject. In this case, a full block is unnecessary in my opinion, unless they repeat their mistake. Aside from these examples, I believe that we should discuss more important issues than edit war. Edit war is, in my opinion, a more Wikipedia issue than Commons (if I'm mistaken, please tell me). In general, I think that partial blocks aren't useful for more than a couple of days or weeks, unless when dealing with special situations (e.g. topic bans). We don't lose anything, including full blocks. We just add an ability. We can never use it, or we can use it frequently, but we can (should?) discuss this later in another RfC/thread. [[User:Ahmad252|Ahmad]]<sup>[[User talk:Ahmad252|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]</sup> 15:12, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
* {{Comment}} I see partial blocks as a first-time solution. For example, I think a user involved in many edit wars should be blocked completely, not partially. In some cases, a new user gets into an edit war and does not stop. In such cases, I prefer a partial block over a full block. Another case can be an experienced user edit warring for the first time beacuse they've lost their temper over a real-world issue related to the subject. In this case, a full block is unnecessary in my opinion, unless they repeat their mistake. Aside from these examples, I believe that we should discuss more important issues than edit war. Edit war is, in my opinion, a more Wikipedia issue than Commons (if I'm mistaken, please tell me). In general, I think that partial blocks aren't useful for more than a couple of days or weeks, unless when dealing with special situations (e.g. topic bans). We don't lose anything, including full blocks. We just add an ability. We can never use it, or we can use it frequently, but we can (should?) discuss this later in another RfC/thread. [[User:Ahmad252|Ahmad]]<sup>[[User talk:Ahmad252|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]</sup> 15:12, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
* {{Comment}} It looks like partial blocks are now live on projects that have not proactively opted out. At least they're live on the English Wikiquote and weren't yesterday. So here's my initial thoughts poking around the interface.
: You can now disable email or account creation ''without'' an edit block, whereas before this was only an option ''in addition to'' an edit block. The email bit could be useful in certain situations where someone isn't necessarily bad-faith harassing someone, but who is being...shall we say...corrosively persistent in a way that can be perceived as harassment.
: Obviously you can block users from certain pages or namespaces. However, it looks like page blocks are themselves namespace/page specific, by which I mean that blocking someone from a file page wouldn't block them from the associated talk page or subpages. It seems obvious how this would be preferable to full protection in an edit war, where the edit war is confined to a few editors, essentially forcing them to use the talk page without cutting the page off from other good faith editors not involved in the edit war.
: Maybe most interesting, it does look like all these settings (except obviously email access) are also available for range blocks. That bit is particularly interesting. My understanding is that pings only work in certain name spaces where they are actively enabled. So if I ping you on a file page it ''shouldn't'' go through. For several LTAs, excessively pinging users, especially from other projects where they are blocked is their main bread and butter. So in theory, you could block a range from all namespaces other than file space, and block them from registering account, rather than blocking it entirely, and disable an entire range from disruptively pinging someone without blocking otherwise good-faith anonymous users from contributing to file space.
: On a side note, it also looks like disabling talk page access is hard-disabled for non-edit blocks. So that much isn't something that would need to be addressed in policy as it's built in to the design. Unfortunately for this discussion, local uploads are disabled on Wikiquote. So I don't actually know how the interface works out, or for that matter, whether it's even currently enabled on projects that do allow local uploads. I would be interested to hear from someone who is an admin on one of these projects. [[User:GreenMeansGo|<span style="font-family:Impact"><span style="color:#07CB4B">G</span><span style="color:#449351">M</span><span style="color:#35683d">G</span></span>]][[User talk:GreenMeansGo|<sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk</sup>]] 17:05, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
=== Supermajority needed ===
=== Supermajority needed ===
This is a major change to the community norms of this project. As such this should require a supermajority to pass, and suggest this is agreed as 2/3 support. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 12:12, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
This is a major change to the community norms of this project. As such this should require a supermajority to pass, and suggest this is agreed as 2/3 support. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 12:12, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
Revision as of 17:05, 7 January 2020
An editor has requested comment from other editors for this discussion.
If you have an opinion regarding this issue, feel free to comment below.
Currently, administrators on Commons are only technically able to prevent users from editing the entire site via a block. In 2018 and early 2019, the Wikimedia Foundation's Anti-Harassment Tools team worked on implementing partial blocks. Rather than the entire site, this functionality would allow administrators to prevent a user from performing specific actions rather than all actions.
Currently, this functionality has been deployed on the Meta Wiki, MediaWiki, all Wiktionary, Wikivoyage, Wikisource wikis, all beta wikis as well 19 different language-specific wikis. For a complete list of wikis, see #Projects that have rolled out partial block.
The purpose of this request for comment is to determine whether partial blocks should be enabled on the Wikimedia Commons. This request for comment will remain open for a minimum of seven (7) days or until consensus is determined. At the earliest, this request for comment can be closed at 01:09, 17 December 2019 (UTC).
Can be set for usernames, IP addresses, or IP ranges
Will include standard block parameters: reason, expiration, talk and subpage inclusion, and the option to autoblock IPs.
Will appear on the block log, block list, and everywhere else sitewide blocks appear.
When a user has been blocked, they will see a block message displayed that explains what they are prevented from editing in addition to the rest of the block information (the admin who blocked them, when the block expires, the block reason, and how to request an unblock.)
Types of blocks
No functionality will change for sitewide blocks. All existing blocks will remain in place and the ability to block troublesome users from the entire project will remain as-is. In addition to sitewide blocks, partial blocks introduce the ability to block a user from:
Editing one or more specific page(s)
Editing all pages within one or more namespace(s)
Emailing other users
Creating accounts
Use cases
These types of partial blocks could be useful when:
An otherwise productive user continuously uploads files that are copyright violations - Partial blocks would allow administrators to restrict that user from editing the File namespace.
An otherwise productive user has an agenda on a particular topic (e.g. politics, religion, etc.) or has a topic ban.
There is sustained vandalism to one page from an identifiable IP range. (e.g. students from a school IP range vandalizing logos for local schools.)
A user have been sanctioned with an interaction ban.
A user abuses the Email User feature but is otherwise productive.
A user makes ill-advised edits to templates.
A user is edit warring - Currently, if a user is edit warring, they may be site-blocked for at least 24 hours on a first offense. With partial blocks, a user could be blocked just from editing the specific page on which they were edit warring, which forces them to stop reverting and use other venues to resolve disputes.
Should partial blocks be enabled on Wikimedia Commons? If needed, a follow-up proposal could be held to determine whether restrictions should be imposed on the use of partial blocks beyond those which the blocking policy already imposes on blocks.
Changes to Commons:Blocking policy, aside from the addition of the partial block feature, would require consensus through a separate proposal.
Support I support the implementation of partial blocks in principle. I have for quite some time. Having the ability to fine tune how we are restricting people can only be a positive. However, as stated previously we should probably have some further guidance on what the community expects from administrators in this area. I personally do not believe that partial blocks should be given to repeat copyright violators. Copyright is literally the crux of our entire project. The media repository hinges on the ability to understand how not to violate someone else's copyright. If you can't at least understand that basic rule here it is hard to imagine that you will understand any of our policies and therefore you are a danger to the entire project. Not just the file namespace. --Majora (talk) 01:39, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Minor mistakes don't necessitate a site-wide block (that would be unduly punishing), but a restriction focused on the area where the issue happened is necessary to limit disruption. Kudos to the developers for implementing it. —Aron Man.🍂 edits🌾 01:52, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. There's definitely some situations when sitewide block is not the optimum solution, it's only used because there is/was no alternative. Now that we have a way to enforce lesser restriction it makes sense to make use of it. – Ammarpad (talk) 06:13, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support On the priciple that partial blocks should be used where they may preserve productive contributions. If the disruption caused by a user is limited to only one area where a partial block may be preventative, but they have no other productive contributions that would be preserved, then there is no compelling reason not to default on the normal blocking and unblock request system. GMGtalk10:51, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but I'm concerned about how it's going to be used. I have been in a project that was one of the first projects to get this feature (Persian Wikipedia), and I've seen admins blocking users from namespaces like Wikipedia: (Commons:) and all talk namespaces at their own discretion. I've also seen admins blocking a user from editing an article for months (or even one year) for some issues like repeatedly changing the lead image, and the thing is that the user continued to do the same thing in other articles. Like what Majora said, I think we need site-wide blocks for serious issues, even if the issue can (apparently) be addressed with a partial block. For instance, problems like continuous copyright violations, serious behavioral issues and so on need a site-wide block in my opinion. I see this useful for small issues, when a site-wide block can simply be too much. In general, I see this just as a helping hand, not as a successor to site-wide blocks. I also strongly support another RfC to discuss how and when this should be used. Ahmadtalk12:38, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support, admins aren't forced to use this to block users, and admins that have doubts unblocking users can always only partially unblock them. In the best case scenario this will prevent the site-wide banning of otherwise productive users and isolate any disruptions. Though I agree with Majora that copyright-based blocks should remain sitewide. This feature will also make "Upload-only accounts" technically possible and users with disruptive histories outside of the file namespace could continue to uploading and categorising files. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 21:06, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I believe, in principle, that these could be useful. I am concerned about how they would be used in practice, however, and would strongly support a further RfC outlining when and how they may be used. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:13, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support As Donald Trung notes, this doesn't remove any existing functionality, and just gives Commons more options for how to handle blocks. It's up to us to decide the policies. Kaldari (talk) 22:43, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Some opposers have a valid point, especially regarding LTA and toxic users. A toxic user always should be blocked completely, even if they may produce useful edits on articles, categories etc. (in Russian WP, there is a particularly embarassing example of "almost complete" block of a user who is known as very toxic; this is surely not an example for Commons to follow). However, blocks are for various reasons and not only about toxic behaviour. For example, it was always a puzzle to me why in case of en edit war there are only two options -- either block the warrior, or full-protect the page. If we block the warrior, then we send the wrong signal that a block be a punishment. If we full-protect the page, we produce collateral damage by excluding all non-sysop users from editing, even non-controversal. So the most intelligent solution by far is, to block the warriors for this page only. For me, this is what partial blocks basically are about and because of that there would be a net positive. It is self-evident that a partial block is only an additional option for special cases such as editwars, never ever a replacement for the full block in general. --A.Savin14:42, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Could be useful in the case of local 'vandalism' disputes where a range of articles locally are being vandalised by one user, who however has meaningful edits being made in another area of WP.User:Roypenfold
Support If this will only be used as an alternative for a complete block. Oppose If a more lenient approach is going to be taken. ℺ Gone Postal (〠✉ • ✍⏿) 11:43, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Citing my meta user page: "Partial block is a nonsense. You can't be civil in one place and act like bullshit and be 'partial blocked' on the other side of a single project. You get a sitewide block from me or no block at all." I will not issue any partial block on any wikis under any circumstances. (Some might say I enabled partial block on kowiki: that was simply because there was consensus to do so despite my opposition (for this reason). When there is consensus, I have to execute it whether I like it or not, that was the case and I did it for that reason, not because I support this.) — regards, Revi04:21, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this is a faulty logic. By this logic, local blocks are also nonsense. You can't be uncivil on English Wikipedia and be blocked and then behave civilly on Commons or Meta. (Theories aside, we have seen this empirically). Maybe we should do away with all local blocks and once you're uncivil in one project you get (the yet to be implemented) global block or no block at all. – Ammarpad (talk) 05:45, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Every wikimedia sites are different (they have different people, different rules, different attitude on everything), and only one thing that makes English Wikipedia and Commons 'same group of sites' is that we have shared centralauth DB. So I treat every wiki as an independent site, (thus) when I block someone on Meta, I leave them as is on Commons as long as they don't repeat. — regards, Revi12:23, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's a strawman, and revi's logic is no such thing. Commons is so different from en.wiki that it isn't funny, and meta is different than both, and those are different than the non-Wikipedias. Either someone is disruptive enough to be blocked, or they shouldn't be blocked. This is not a more lenient way to deal with people. This is a way to expand admin power in areas that it would never be used today, while also making it more difficult to block people who need to be blocked because of the argument they could have used the partial block. It will do nothing but cause problems. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:23, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose no use case where the problem created by partial blocks would not be worse than the problem solved. Someone is either disruptive enough for a full block or they aren't. This would also give administrators significantly more power than they already have: the all or nothing approach constrains sysops to be cautious and only act in clear use cases. This would be a massive expansion of admin power in addition to making it easier for disruptive personalities to thrive even more on Wikimedia projects. This is quite simply the worst technological idea in the Wikimedia movement. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:05, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any researched evidence that shows partial blocks "creating" problems? It's against common sense to expect that. Any partial block that would result in an endless debate can be escalated to a full block. This is a deterrent to "create problems" after a partial block.
Human personality is more complex than "either disruptive enough for a full block or [not]". The lack of fine-grained sanctions since Wikipedia became popular resulted in an all-or-nothing sanctioning culture: overly-punishing blocks on one hand and "non-actionable" conduct issues on the other. Partial blocks is finally the appropriate tool to prevent localized damage, without unnecessarily punishing an editor.
The same transparency and unblock procedures apply to partial and full blocks, therefore it gives no more power to admins, quite the opposite, it reduces the potential damage done by bad blocks, while full (site-wide) blocks gave too much power to administrators: the "constrain" to "be cautious" did not prevent the long list of bad blocks.
Partial blocks are expected to make blocking less of a big deal, thereby reducing drama and fighting on noticeboards. It's a more humane approach to restricting disruption. —Aron Man.🍂 edits🌾 04:41, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unconvinced by examples. For example the "topic ban" is in fact just banning from certain forum pages. We can't "topic ban" someone from discussing a topic or causing disruption wrt a topic. The "topic ban" and "interaction ban" is popular on Wikipedia but just plain inappropriate on Commons. We have only a tiny area of community interaction and banning someone from Commons namespace is effectively full censorship and outcast -- we don't generally have extensive user talk page discussions, project talk page discussions or article/file talk page discussions. Commons is not so huge that we need automated tools to police our admin interventions. If we are upset that someone keeps uploading copyvios, but is good at reviewing pictures at FP, we leave messages warning that further uploads of copyvios will lead to a block. The user has the choice to obey, or get reported at AN/I and blocked. They can later repent and be a good FP reviewer if they choose to respect our values on copyright. Why try to automate that with crude tools. I see those who support sockpuppets and troublemakers supporting this just to allow those users to continue to upload files, but Commons is a community project, not a file storage website. --Colin (talk) 09:43, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per colin and revi. If the issue has already escalated to an extent where edit warring is involved or having several users argue with each other, I don't see how blocking the users on the specific namespace would help in any way. If they're gonna argue, it can be, and will be, done in other namespaces and it's a waste of time & resource to block the same user twice for the same reason (initial partial block, and second full (normal) block). Taking case study #2 as an example, if Incnis Mrsi is adding non-constructive comments to admins' boards and an admin blocks him from editing those pages, he/she can still ping the hell out of whoever the person is on a separate page so as to get the message across, which will then require a second block (full). In short, the partial block is useless. If one wants to do it, he/she will most probably do it and quoting from revi, "You can't be civil in one place and act like bullshit and be 'partial blocked' on the other side of a single project". In another POV, a partial block closely relates to a cool down block, which is not condoned here. 大诺史 (Talk/留言) 12:37, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The potential use cases actually make no sense and debunk the proposal. Currently blocked users can use their user page to discuss their block. Users engaged in an overwrite war never happens if any admin uses temporary file protection which encourages participants to discuss without overwriting. A user who is proven to be targetting and harassing others should be blocked until they at a minimum credibly commit to cease, stopping them from editing specific pages diminishes this to appearing a technical issue, when any serious harassment should be a matter for considering a global ban. --Fæ (talk) 12:09, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose it's just gonna waste more time on why some topics should be banned for a user, why not other topics, why not full block, is s/he circumventing a block when s/he does so and so... Time should be spent on what issues need to be resolved, rahter than why some users should be banned from certain areas. If they cant work with others on one topic, chances are they cant do that in other areas too.--Roy17 (talk) 21:18, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If an editor is disruptive on an article or a theme, he/she will be everywhere. I do not see how a partial block would calm this editor, it will just let him/her go to another item to vandalize. Adjusting the blocking time seems a better way to give a cool down to that user. To protect an article or a theme, a protection of that item is much better. Pierre cb (talk) 04:02, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Steinsplitter: I've already explained it, even above in response to the opposes. The sort of editor who joins for the sake of disrupting quickly ends up indeffed. Partial blocks are for those who do not intend to disrupt, but wind up in a debate and get sanctioned for stepping over a line that is not clearly defined. Partial block stops the disruption and gives them the chance to edit elsewhere, without trouble. As with page protection in editwars: the involved editors usually don't start editwarring on different pages for the sake of it, but instead, start contributing beneficially in a different topic/article. —Aron Man.🍂 edits🌾 17:17, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is the burden on those that are lobbying for change to provide clear and unambiguous evidence that change is really needed, not on those that have asked for evidence to provide arguments against changing the current perfectly adequate system for the sake of changing it when no measurable benefits for this project have been defined. --Fæ (talk) 12:34, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The way to provide such evidence would be to do a trial in this case. "Doctor, I will not try any medicine before it has been proven to work for me." - Alexis Jazzping plz14:44, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure what the point of your parody is. Qualified medical doctors never hand out medicine to their patients which is untested and for which there are no measurable benefits and appear unrelated to any symptoms the patient they are examining has, that's more the domain of quackery. Medicines are tested in labs, this RFC is about rolling out a systems and fundamental policy change, not a lab experiment. --Fæ (talk) 12:54, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not useful. It only adds more wikidrama, based on my experiences at fawiki. And its badge of shame is disgusting. A user is contributing to the project with a big red notice on their contributions page. 4nn1l2 (talk) 12:37, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Fæ: The same notice as one would see on the contributions page of any blocked user such as this one. However, fully-blocked users don't edit anymore (of course, outside their own talk page), but partially-blocked users can still edit and contribute to the project. This is especially of concern on smaller projects, such as fawiki, where patrolling Special:RecentChanges is possible and popular. One can occasionally see partially-blocked users contributing to the project with a badge of shame :-( 4nn1l2 (talk) 13:12, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for highlighting this aspect. Everyone gets the idea of a block/block appeal process, fewer people get the reality that shaming users either drives them off this project, gets them to set up sock accounts, or puts them in to a bitter spiral of increasingly negative behaviours. It seems extraordinary that considering the last 15 years of discussion and hand-wringing about harassment on Wikimedia projects by experts and WMF funded projects, that all we have are these negative reenforcing partial blocks rather than postitive initiatives in mediation, dispute resolution or even better clean start processes. It seems resoundingly obvious that this RFC should be rejected for the reasons that folks are giving to support it, it will deliver the opposite of the outcome intended on this project. --Fæ (talk) 13:18, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As stated by multiple others above, if someone acts disruptively, a partial block will most probably not be enough. Such a partially-blocked user might even start disrupting other areas of project, out of anger. --GeXeS (talk) 15:46, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose a good tool for Wikipedia but unsuitable for Wikimedia Commons. Partial blocks are usefull for enforcing and applying topics bans, interaction bans and so on but we don't really have those. Natuur12 (talk) 17:58, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - I don't see a reason not to implement this feature, but simultaneously I do not see any of the listed situations as being relevant here on Commons, simply on the grounds that we have very little use of Mainspace. If a user is harrassing others but is "otherwise productive" we should kick them the f*** out because we do not want toxic people here. If a user is vandalising something but is "otherwise productive" we should kick them the f*** out because we don't want vandals on our project. If a user is abusing Filespace, then we should kick them the f*** out because Filespace is basically all that exists on Commons. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:52, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Mattbuck: but if a user is disruptive anywhere but Filespace (or only on some specific page in Filespace), a partial block could be useful. Perhaps again not the best example, but Kai3952 was disruptive nearly everywhere but Filespace/Categoryspace. - Alexis Jazzping plz14:48, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - I am not against this in principle but cannot see (beyond the activity mentioned later) how it can be implemented effectively. Commons does not split down into readily identifiable segments where access may be revoked activity by activity. In addition an "otherwise productive" exclusion could well be used as a license for a disruptive behaviour in areas beyond that in which user as been productive. The place where it could be useful is to prevent mass uploads of files whether copyrighted or of little use. S a g a C i t y (talk) 07:54, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion
The Wikimedia Foundation's point of contact for this feature is Sydney Poore (SPoore (WMF)), member of the Anti-Harassment Tools team. Syndey can answer specific questions in regards to the partial block feature.
As I imagine this question will get asked... additional partial block options such as category block, move block and upload block have been considered by devs and are understood to be a desired feature with tasks on phabricator, however, are lower on the priority list than other partial block tasks. ~riley(talk)02:34, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Krd: Please do remember that anyone can edit Wikimedia projects. We are working to make Wikimedia Commons a free educational media repository. It is unfortunate that we sometimes have to violate this core principal by blocking vandals/problematic users. This is not English Wikipedia, more help is always needed and it is not good to lose long term contributors. Partial block enables administrators to choose whether or not a problematic user should be blocked site-wide. Not everyone problematic user is eligible for site-wide block. You are saying that we don't have any use of it on Commons. Could you please explain your reasoning a bit more? I am curious to know why do you think that. Masum Reza📞13:24, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Partial blocks imply that it is acceptable to abuse the community on one end when being productive at another. I don't think that we should micromanage offenders, on any project, but especially here at Commons. One may chose to not agree with any opinion that is consensus, one may refuse to actively work in an area, both can be achieved in a respectful manner. But one should not be allowed to opt-out the rules at one place and be welcomed at another. That is what some, if not all, above examples are about. That will in my opinion not lead to a more healthy environment. --Krd17:56, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Krd: "abuse" and "offenders" are not black-and-white categories. We all make mistakes or wound up in a disruptive debate from time to time. That does not mean we can't function beneficially in other areas. Partial blocks are about restricting our participation in areas where emotions took over reason. It is expected that those emotions settle after some time and we can continue reasonable work. —Aron Man.🍂 edits🌾 03:19, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support another RfC to discuss how and when this should be used (per Ahmad). Let's say I and an other user got mad at each other but I got blocked by any admin and the other user was not, cuz the admin was the other users friend. I feel when applying a communication ban it must be two sided, the other user should also be blocked from writing on my talk-page if I get block from from their talking page. One sided ban is IMO discouraging, I can't even think of contributing to a project where I got blocked for fighting with another user and he was set free to write on my talk-page. It's better to block completely rather than one sided partial ban, one sided partial block hurts. -- Eatcha (talk) 18:19, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's irrelevant on what page the discussion takes place (VPP is fine) but it's important that one sided ban should be avoided in most of the case, how could anyone expect the blocked user to continue contributing if they are the only ones who's getting punished. Not Fair, I mean (Unfair). -- Eatcha (talk) 18:31, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A one-sided interaction ban can be useful in my opinion, but not in most cases. Sometimes, User 1 is really following all the rules, but User 2 still harasses them. In such cases, I think a one-sided interaction ban is useful, but User 1 is also encouraged not to contact User 2 in any form.
But this isn't my main concern. A ban is a different thing; it requires community consensus. Blocks, however, are performed at administrator's discretion. Now, imagine that an admin partially blocks a user from Commons namespace and all talk: namespaces. So, let's assume that this user wants to report a vandal. What should they do, when they can't edit Commons: namespace? I can't imagine such a situation; we don't put users in a solitary cell as this project is designed to be communication-based. I see how partial blocks are useful, but I can see how they can cause serious harm to the project if used improperly as well. Ahmadtalk19:30, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, While I support this proposal, I must express some fears I have with this, one of which is that I think that partial blocks might be given in many cases when in the current system no blocks would have been given. I personally hope that more discussion will be required before a user would be able to be banned for more than 6 (six) months (including indefinite bans) from certain pages. But the first step to having a less severe blocking culture would be by giving admins the tools to give less harsh and overarching blocks and bans now, in the coming years I expect that more policies will be written around these new features. Though personally I don't get why the Wikimedia Foundation doesn't just implement this by default, what would we truly lose if partial blocks were implemented? Admins aren’t forced to use them when they don't want to, “giving the community a choice” just means that they (we) will could prevent something that's a net benefit to it.
In fact, policies are written around the technical capabilities and limitations of the MediaWiki software, not vice versa. There is literally not a single reason why a piece of software that doesn't limit anything possible today but only expand it should not just be enabled by default, if partial blocks had the potential to damage the workflow of the community I could understand that it would require prior discussion, but this is unnecessary bureaucracy. I would almost start a proposal to enable technical features to trusted users that do not take anything away by default.
Question I don't see the point, if a user has disrupted to the point of requiring a block, then why wouldn't they continue other disruptive edits elsewhere? Shorter block duration is preferable.--BevinKacon (talk) 23:03, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Discussions, like consensus-seeking between good-faith editors occasionally turn into debates, that become heated, then escalates to blocking. The participants usually had no intention to create disruption in the first place and no reason to disrupt elsewhere. The point of partial blocking is to stop the localized debates that got out of hand. This is far more common than editors who disrupt for the sake of disruption: the latter kind doesn't last long. —Aron Man.🍂 edits🌾 02:36, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The primary argument of the opposition: "Partial block is a nonsense.[citation needed] You can't be civil in one place and act like bullshit and be 'partial blocked' on the other side of a single project."
That sounds good. If we follow the supporters, we should implement partial blocks because they support them. If we follow the opposers, we should implement partial blocks to test their theory. - Alexis Jazzping plz18:02, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see partial blocks as a first-time solution. For example, I think a user involved in many edit wars should be blocked completely, not partially. In some cases, a new user gets into an edit war and does not stop. In such cases, I prefer a partial block over a full block. Another case can be an experienced user edit warring for the first time beacuse they've lost their temper over a real-world issue related to the subject. In this case, a full block is unnecessary in my opinion, unless they repeat their mistake. Aside from these examples, I believe that we should discuss more important issues than edit war. Edit war is, in my opinion, a more Wikipedia issue than Commons (if I'm mistaken, please tell me). In general, I think that partial blocks aren't useful for more than a couple of days or weeks, unless when dealing with special situations (e.g. topic bans). We don't lose anything, including full blocks. We just add an ability. We can never use it, or we can use it frequently, but we can (should?) discuss this later in another RfC/thread. Ahmadtalk15:12, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It looks like partial blocks are now live on projects that have not proactively opted out. At least they're live on the English Wikiquote and weren't yesterday. So here's my initial thoughts poking around the interface.
You can now disable email or account creation without an edit block, whereas before this was only an option in addition to an edit block. The email bit could be useful in certain situations where someone isn't necessarily bad-faith harassing someone, but who is being...shall we say...corrosively persistent in a way that can be perceived as harassment.
Obviously you can block users from certain pages or namespaces. However, it looks like page blocks are themselves namespace/page specific, by which I mean that blocking someone from a file page wouldn't block them from the associated talk page or subpages. It seems obvious how this would be preferable to full protection in an edit war, where the edit war is confined to a few editors, essentially forcing them to use the talk page without cutting the page off from other good faith editors not involved in the edit war.
Maybe most interesting, it does look like all these settings (except obviously email access) are also available for range blocks. That bit is particularly interesting. My understanding is that pings only work in certain name spaces where they are actively enabled. So if I ping you on a file page it shouldn't go through. For several LTAs, excessively pinging users, especially from other projects where they are blocked is their main bread and butter. So in theory, you could block a range from all namespaces other than file space, and block them from registering account, rather than blocking it entirely, and disable an entire range from disruptively pinging someone without blocking otherwise good-faith anonymous users from contributing to file space.
On a side note, it also looks like disabling talk page access is hard-disabled for non-edit blocks. So that much isn't something that would need to be addressed in policy as it's built in to the design. Unfortunately for this discussion, local uploads are disabled on Wikiquote. So I don't actually know how the interface works out, or for that matter, whether it's even currently enabled on projects that do allow local uploads. I would be interested to hear from someone who is an admin on one of these projects. GMGtalk17:05, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Supermajority needed
This is a major change to the community norms of this project. As such this should require a supermajority to pass, and suggest this is agreed as 2/3 support. --Fæ (talk) 12:12, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I just think we'd be crazy not to at least try it. When we block a user, we don't just block their activity here. We also harm their ability to contribute to any project that doesn't have local uploads enabled. Up to now, this was a technical limitation. That excuse is no longer valid. I think it's impossible to predict how partial blocks will work out. I'd be happy to throw out whatever the result of this poll is in favor of actually starting a trial and voting after that. If the fear of the opposition is justified, the trial will show it and a supermajority will vote to remove it. If it works, some of the opposition will probably change their vote. There is no transition or conversion of any kind when implementing this, and in case of failure there will be no users who have a partial block to deal with. There is no reason not to do a trial. - Alexis Jazzping plz14:33, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Commons doesn't function on votes, supermajority or otherwise. We function on consensus. If there is consensus for this it will be implemented. --Majora (talk) 17:18, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes there is. This is not a practice in vote counting. It never was and never will be. That isn't how discussions are properly closed. --Majora (talk) 22:58, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure there is a big difference in practice. In theory, yes, but I can't quite describe what the difference in practice would be on Commons. - Alexis Jazzping plz01:51, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Majora, how exactly do you (or another admin) plan to judge if there is consensus, without vote counting, and what process or efforts are being made to encourage the community to develop a consensus. Seems this is a binary yes/no decision we're being asked to make at present. As usual for Commons, we were just asked to vote, so I see people leave their vote and, well, leave. Even the discussion section is mostly just a series of unconnected bullet points. I don't see any effort, for example, to select some of the pro/con arguments for further evaluation, or even to reconsider the lame case studies. -- Colin (talk) 21:23, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your opinion seems to be that we can't determine consensus by reading the above. Alexis's appears to be that we "can't" determine consensus because it would be a pointless exercise only aligning to vote counting anyways. I assure both of you that your sides are both incorrect. I personally can't close this since I voiced my opinion so I'm not entirely sure what you are looking for from me. --Majora (talk) 21:50, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, there are cases where the consensus is different from the votes. I'm not sure how to read any consensus from the votes and discussion above. The supporting side is clear, but the opposing side has mostly based their opinion on unproven fears. Admittedly the benefits are also unproven, but if partial blocks would turn out to be a disaster there would simply be a new vote. The opposing side has already jumped to this future vote based primarily on their gut feeling. So the outcome is.. no outcome? Now, considering that the default is for partial blocks to be deployed (on January 6 they will be deployed on all projects that aren't discussing them), I think we need consensus to hold them off or disable them. Which we clearly don't have. - Alexis Jazzping plz22:38, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I didn't think you could, or would explain, other that to assert you are correct and others are wrong. I remain unenlightened. -- Colin (talk) 14:03, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just to remind you all, Partial blocks will be deployed to most projects on January 06, 2020 unless the community asks for more time. We already have the support of the majority. This discussion isn't going anywhere. The only way I can think of to prove those concerns of opposers wrong is to enable it for a trial. Masum Reza📞02:19, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is no "enabling for a trial", as this is a operational permanent change, with no end date and no measured outcomes or measurable benefits. --Fæ (talk) 16:34, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support as co-nominator. Masum Reza📞 00:59, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
strongly support another RfC to discuss how and when this should be used. Ahmadtalk 12:38, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Oppose If a more lenient approach is going to be taken. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 11:43, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Neutral - I don't see a reason not to implement this feature, but simultaneously I do not see any of the listed situations as being relevant here on Commons, simply on the grounds that we have very little use of Mainspace. If a user is harrassing others but is "otherwise productive" we should kick them the f*** out because we do not want toxic people here. If a user is vandalising something but is "otherwise productive" we should kick them the f*** out because we don't want vandals on our project. If a user is abusing Filespace, then we should kick them the f*** out because Filespace is basically all that exists on Commons. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:52, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Comment, While I support this proposal, I must express some fears I have with this, one of which is that I think that partial blocks might be given in many cases when in the current system no blocks would have been given. I personally hope that more discussion will be required before a user would be able to be banned for more than 6 (six) months (including indefinite bans) from certain pages. But the first step to having a less severe blocking culture would be by giving admins the tools to give less harsh and overarching blocks and bans now, in the coming years I expect that more policies will be written around these new features. Though personally I don't get why the Wikimedia Foundation doesn't just implement this by default, what would we truly lose if partial blocks were implemented? Admins aren’t forced to use them when they don't want to, “giving the community a choice” just means that they (we) 
Question I don't see the point, if a user has disrupted to the point of requiring a block, then why wouldn't they continue other disruptive edits elsewhere? Shorter block duration is preferable.--BevinKacon (talk) 23:03, 13 December 2019 (UTC)