Page MenuHomePhabricator

Allow Special:GlobalBlock to manage whether a global account block causes global autoblocks
Closed, ResolvedPublic2 Estimated Story Points

Description

The Special:GlobalBlock page needs to be updated to allow enabling (or disabling) global autoblocks for a block on a global account.

Open questions
  • Should the option to enable global autoblocks be checked by default?
    • The Special:Block has this checked by default
    • However, global autoblocks are likely to affect more people so more caution may be desired when using this option
    • Answered: WMF stewards would prefer that this be checked by default
Acceptance criteria
  • Special:GlobalBlock allows disabling or enabling global autoblocks for a global block on an account

Event Timeline

Change #1079519 had a related patch set uploaded (by Dreamy Jazz; author: Dreamy Jazz):

[mediawiki/extensions/GlobalBlocking@master] [WIP] Allow Special:GlobalBlock to enable autoblocks on global block

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/1079519

Change #1079519 merged by jenkins-bot:

[mediawiki/extensions/GlobalBlocking@master] Allow Special:GlobalBlock to enable autoblocks on global block

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/1079519

For QA I would suggest visiting Special:GlobalBlock and globally block a recently active user with global autoblocks enabled. Make sure that this causes an autoblock to appear in Special:GlobalBlockList. You will need to have installed CheckUser on the wiki you are testing on before you create the account that you will globally block for this test.

To be able to complete this test you will need to set $wgGlobalBlockingEnableAutoblocks = true; in your LocalSettings.php. It is also expected that the autoblocked IP will be public Special:GlobalBlockList, and this will be fixed in T377034. If you wish to test this in patch demo, I can make a patch which you can include in the creation of the wiki to be able to test on patch demo (just let me know).

Djackson-ctr subscribed.

QA has been completed (Special:GlobalBlock allows disabling or enabling global autoblocks for a global block on an account).

image.png (643×1 px, 47 KB)

image.png (617×1 px, 45 KB)

A question about the message globalblocking-block-enable-autoblock (Automatically globally block the {{PLURAL:$1|last IP address|last $1 IP addresses}} used by this user, and any subsequent IP addresses they try to edit from, for a period of $2):

Can it refer to a specific username, or only to IP addresses or temporary accounts?

If it can refer to a specific username, then it can probably say he tries|she tries|they try with GENDER, but it will also need a username parameter.

Is it doable? Or too complicated and not worth the effort? Or not appropriate in this case?

Another thing to consider is to replace "user" with "account", and then the pronoun simply describes the account and not the person.

A question about the message globalblocking-block-enable-autoblock (Automatically globally block the {{PLURAL:$1|last IP address|last $1 IP addresses}} used by this user, and any subsequent IP addresses they try to edit from, for a period of $2):

Can it refer to a specific username, or only to IP addresses or temporary accounts?

Yes, it can refer to a specific username. However, the username it will refer to would change based on the value in the target field.

If it can refer to a specific username, then it can probably say he tries|she tries|they try with GENDER, but it will also need a username parameter.

Is it doable? Or too complicated and not worth the effort? Or not appropriate in this case?

I think it is doable with some JavaScript that replaces the message used for the field when the target field is updated. However, I don't know if this is worth the effort.

Another thing to consider is to replace "user" with "account", and then the pronoun simply describes the account and not the person.

The wording comes from the equivalent message in MediaWiki core (along with the lack of GENDER support), namely ipbenableautoblock. This uses the user wording. Perhaps if this should be updated then we should also update the core message?

kostajh subscribed.

For the last comments about messaging: @Amire80 can you please create a new task with if you'd like to see changes made?