Page MenuHomePhabricator

Consider whether the "Confirm block" checkbox is needed on Special:Block
Closed, ResolvedPublic

Description

When blocking a user who is already blocked, a checkbox to confirm the re-block must be checked, before clicking the "Re-block" button.

Is the checkbox a redundant step or a helpful safety feature?

Event Timeline

Tchanders created this task.Jan 9 2019, 3:36 PM
Restricted Application added subscribers: MGChecker, Aklapper. · View Herald TranscriptJan 9 2019, 3:36 PM

Personally I don't like it, but it's possible to get to this page from the "Block user" link on a user page, but still it seems obvious to me that you are editing a block, but I'm not sure why it was added in the first place.

TBolliger triaged this task as Low priority.Jan 9 2019, 4:49 PM
TBolliger moved this task from Untriaged to spare column on the Anti-Harassment board.
TBolliger added a subscriber: TBolliger.

I think it's important to keep because there are two primary use cases:

#1 — Admin blocks a user, but the admin is not aware the user is already blocked. This is a bit of sloppy work on the admin's part, but still possible. If I navigate to zero-state Special:Block directly and type in 'Usernametoblock' (as opposed to navigating to Special:Block/Usernametoblock) the page does not show that that person is already blocked. On submit, the page refreshes to show the block log entries for that user so the Admin can see how their configured block varies from the existing block (duration, options, etc.)

IMO this should be solved by having validation on the username/IP input field, but that is outside the scope of our work.

#2 — Two admins race to block one user. This is a variation on #1, but the use case is that two (or more) admins see a troll/vandal/spammer/etc who needs immediate blocking. If they both navigate to Special:Block/Badtrollguy at the same time, it will appear empty. The fastest admin will set the block and the second will see the "are you sure?" message and checkbox.


To answer the question in the ticket — Is the checkbox a redundant step or a helpful safety feature? — I'd say "both." 🙂

SPoore added a subscriber: SPoore.Jan 9 2019, 5:35 PM

I agree with Trevor that we should keep it for now

It is not part of this team work to change existing functionality without community discussion. And since Trevor has identified sound reasons for having it, I don't think we need to open a discussion about it.

dbarratt added a comment.EditedJan 9 2019, 5:40 PM

Oh I see, so this checkbox effectively prevents a race condition from happening. The second admin can't override the first admin's work unintentionally. Sounds like we need revisions. 😛 T208175

🏎

Exactly. Unless this checkbox is causing major issues and needs to be re-considered I say we keep it and move on.

Exactly. Unless this checkbox is causing major issues and needs to be re-considered I say we keep it and move on.

I am sure we can come up with a more elegant solution for the race condition but since its out of our scope, and isn't causing harm, I agree with @TBolliger.

TBolliger closed this task as Resolved.Jan 30 2019, 10:48 PM
TBolliger claimed this task.

Considered, and won't change.