So this is just adding the word "specified" to the current message?

In T208895#4730270, @dbarratt wrote:

In T208895#4726402, @dmaza wrote:

This is arguably working as intended. I would agree this is low priority.

If you have the config enable, then creating a partial block on someone would cause them to not be able to log in, which sounds extreme when your only intention is to block them from editing a single page.

This is arguably working as intended. I would agree this is low priority.

In T208731#4720330, @Aklapper wrote:

@dmaza: Which code repository is this about?

In T208645#4720256, @dbarratt wrote:

I believe this should be resolved with T6995 correct @TBolliger?

I think this is directly related to T208560: If a user is partially blocked they should be able to perform rollback on unrelated pages

We do have in fact multiple tests[1] regarding this edge cases. I can't reproduce this locally.

In T208560#4714965, @jrbs wrote:

This probably isn’t limited to admins, right? Can regular users with rollback perform rollbacks while partially blocked?

Thank you @Jdforrester-WMF

@TBolliger, what exactly are we trying to get out of these numbers?

Thank you @Jdlrobson, I'll give that a try. I don't think a feature flag is necessary in this case but I defer to your expertise.

Due to my limited familiarity with MobileFrontend I'm looking for some feedback/help on this before I submit the patch for review.

In T207413#4678668, @Jdlrobson wrote:

I think https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/mediawiki/skins/MinervaNeue/+/447502/ takes care of this. Ping @Fomafix @cscott for confirmation.

That is due to AbuseFilter having:

composer.json

{
  "require": {
    "mediawiki/anti-spoof": "dev-master"
  }
}

That should be removed entirely.

Here is the relevant code that generates the csv
https://github.com/dayllanmaza/wikireplicas-reports/commit/60659e22cf958734129844a4065f30f5ec397e29

I've thought about this for a while, and I while I usually prefer more specific, contextual messages I think it's absolutely fine to use your proposed message. I'll update this task, are there any others I need to update?

Another interesting find.. If you are using visual editor, even if you get the notification saying that you are blocked you can still edit the page and try to save. In this scenario you get a different message from the api saying You have been blocked from editing. I've modified this for partial blocks and it currently say You have been blocked from editing this page.

What if instead of using multiple messages for partial blocks on edit/move/protect/delete we had a more generic one that would work for all of those?

Whatever is decided here, multiblock should be kept in mind when designing it considering that something very similar needs to be done if/when multiblocks is implemented

In T206031#4640292, @TBolliger wrote:

It seems to me like we can re-use the string MediaWiki:Blockedtext-partial with a minor addition.

• The current text reads Your username or IP address has been blocked from editing this page. and this could change based on the context.
• For email — Your username or IP address has been blocked from emailing other users.
• For uploading files — Your username or IP address has been blocked from uploading files.
  
  We could add this as parameter $9, or we can use different messages entirely. Whatever is best practice.

In T176370#4625630, @Legoktm wrote:

In T176370#4625612, @dmaza wrote:

Is there any particular reason why we are doing APC instead of an alternative considering that APC is unmaintained?

I think we tend to use the names APC and APCu interchangably. We are going to end up using APCu, which is maintained AIUI.

Is there any particular reason why we are doing APC instead of an alternative considering that APC is unmaintained?

Good catch. Do we need to fix this in this task, or in a future task?

@TBolliger, see below the sample messages for re-block and unblock

03:57, 10 September 2018 Admin (talk | contribs | block) changed block settings for Test1 (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of 01:19, 25 September 2018 (account creation disabled, autoblock disabled, cannot edit own talk page) (Extending block length) (unblock | change block)
--
04:45, 10 September 2018 Admin (talk | contribs | block) unblocked Test1 (talk | contribs) (Wrong user name. Removing block)

Data generated with https://gist.github.com/dayllanmaza/6d9c55a80da837fc68a3a6af310c01a8

But we still need to decide if the message is appropriate to display at all for partial blocks. If setting a partial block acts too much like a scarlet letter then it might dissuade admins to set them in some scenarios.

In T197117#4545630, @dbarratt wrote:

@dmaza if it's just displaying the log entry, then it should be updated when we do T197108 automatically (I think), so I would keep it there.

In the User Page and User Talk Page we currently display a message if the user is blocked. Do we want to keep this message if a partial block exists or only for sitewide blocks?

I don't mean not to log the pages/namespaces of a partial block. I mean not to display it by default. The data should be there and accessible if someone wants to know more.

I think idea 2 is the way to go. @TBolliger, why do you say that the sequence of events is not gonna be clear? On a side note, we could have a flag as part of the filter to display the full details of the block, or the summarize version of it.

Maybe it is a good idea to also remove the debug tracking we have in there (?)
https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/plugins/gitiles/mediawiki/core/+/master/includes/user/User.php#1407

I think it is a valid scenario for partial blocks. Merging the auto-blocks seems like a solution (from the top of my head). Basically the auto-block for User:Bananas will re-use the auto-block created by User:Apples for the coffee shop IP. Actually, considering the unique index constraint merging the auto-blocks is the only solution.

Assuming that the resulting auto-blocks from a partial block will include the same restrictions as the original block, do we need a different message for it like we are adding for partial blocks?

@dbarratt feel free to update this ticket with a proper title/description :)