Not that I'm opposed, but would having this imply a mirrored unblock capability? What about protection and deletion?

In T246473#5928111, @Amorymeltzer wrote:

Not that I'm opposed, but would having this imply a mirrored unblock capability? What about protection and deletion?

Unblock is maybe in scope here. Protection and deletion should be their own separate tasks, if they're actually useful/needed/wanted.

I don't know if mass unblock is necessarily needed. The use case is more for "mass blocking" spam accounts, that are never going to be unblocked etc.

This is what https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:BlockBatch does, though it is written by a currently WMF-banned user and currently unmaintained.

T145966#3382152 is a concern.

In T246473#5928226, @Bugreporter wrote:

T145966#3382152 is a concern.

That's DeleteBatch :)

In T246473#5928224, @Bugreporter wrote:

This is what https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:BlockBatch does, though it is written by a currently WMF-banned user and currently unmaintained.

The code looks a lot like SpecialBlock, so it's basically a fork (see P10560, so much code that's roughly the same, just outdated)... And unfortunately doesn't include a version of the form before modifying it, so diffing changes is probably harder

And yeah, it's not been touched in nearly 6 years...

CheckUser allows blocking multiple users at once and we're planning to build a special page forked off of Special:Block to have that functionality in the new Checkuser version.
I am imagining there are some potential risks to granting this functionality to everyone with Special:Block access on the wiki -- are there any past conversations that have happened around this on the wiki?

In T246473#6006335, @Niharika wrote:

CheckUser allows blocking multiple users at once and we're planning to build a special page forked off of Special:Block to have that functionality in the new Checkuser version.
I am imagining there are some potential risks to granting this functionality to everyone with Special:Block access on the wiki -- are there any past conversations that have happened around this on the wiki?

I'm sure there's some tasks/discussions. Not familiar offhand. Though, I'd think if we trust people to block people, and use gadgets like the above to speed it up...

Could put it behind a "massblock" or similar right though if we wanted to add some extra security

I vaguely recall there being a bit of a concern when enWiki's massblock userscript was first introduced (circa 2010), although I think it was more concerned with someone going rouge than a security risk (different times...). Our ability to handle such things has markedly improved since then (bureaucrat removal of sysop, steward corps, block user who blocked you, etc.) but even ignoring that, that script has been noted in the new admin's guide since at least 2015 so I don't think there's been much a concern there (although it's unclear how many folks, especially old hands, ever read/read it). Absence of evidence != evidence of absence and all that, but just to say that the userscript hasn't been cranked about lately.

Thanks for the context, @Amorymeltzer. If I were to start a new discussion about creating a dedicated special page for mass-block on enwiki, what would be the best place to do it?

I'd go with Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard: it's the main place for sysop-related concerns and notices, and is tracked pretty heavily by everyone so it's a common place for such notices. There could be arguments for other places, but AN makes the most sense to introduce and take folks' temperature.

(belated cc of @MusikAnimal as the author of the new admin guide, forgot to do so previously)

I think this should be granted to all users with the ability to block users (with extra features for CheckUsers that should be discussed in Special:InvestigateBlock-related tasks). We already have User:Timotheus Canens/massblock.js that does the very same thing. I have not tested the script yet, but the fact that it exists (and has been listed on Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Tools) suggests that we can trust administrators with a massblock function.