From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Suggestions for improvement of the blocking form at Special:Blockip and the block list at Special:Ipblocklist.

Proposed changes[edit]


  1. Accepts a username or IP address
  2. Checks for the existence of a block

Block exists[edit]

  1. Shows information pertaining to the block
  2. Link to the block log for that user
  3. Accepts "amendments" to the block length and reason
  4. Removes existing block with boilerplate reason
  5. Implements new block with amended details

Block doesn't exist[edit]

  1. Accepts block length and reason
  2. Implements new block with given details


New special page for unblocking
  1. Accepts username or IP address or autoblock number
  2. Checks for the existence of a block
  3. Shows information pertaining to the block
  4. Accepts a reason for unblocking and confirmation

This has now been completed.


  • Move unblocking to Special:Unblock
  • Format data in a table
    • Semantics
    • Readability
  • Allow filtering by block type (username/IP, range, auto)

Future considerations[edit]


Provides links to useful DNS lookups, WHOIS, etc.


Further suggestions[edit]

  • Issuing a longer block should automatically cancel all existing shorter blocks, and issuing a shorter block should result in an error/information message that informs of the longer block and directs the blocker to the talk page of the admin that issued the existing block so they can raise the issue there before reducing the block. -- Essjay TalkContact 23:39, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
    • In my opinion, we don't need mediawiki modified to enforce a particular blocking procedure, which may vary from wiki to wiki. I also don't think one form of block override (extension) should be favored over another form (reduction). It seems to me sufficient to inform that there is a conflicting block, and allow the blocking admin to decide to override or not. Demi T/C 23:45, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Agree with Demi. Also, I'm not sure how Essjay's suggestion could be implemented. If I understand it properly, it allows blocks to be shortened, but only after leaving a note on the original blocker's talk page? FreplySpang 23:47, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
      • The idea was that if there was a longer block, the admin wouldn't want to shorten it. I may have not been clear: It should still allow them to shorten if they see a reason to do so (or, the old proceedure, of unblock and reblock could be employed), but should also provide a gentle suggestion to take it to the other admin's talk page first. -- Essjay TalkContact 02:45, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Oh, sorry for the misunderstanding. Gentle suggestions are great. FreplySpang 07:12, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Have information about blocks appear automatically at userpages, so that the information is more accessible. 21:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • There should be an option to prevent autoblocking or not. For example, we of course would want an autoblock for a 3RR violation, while we would avoid using it for inappropriate usernames (unless they were WiC usernames or similar). This is probably not about the block page than the function, so this of course would be harder to implement. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 03:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Preventing simulblocking[edit]

  • Perhaps transclude the block log for that user on that page. If unfeasible, or looks too ugly (following experiments), link to the block log for convenience instead.
  • The ability to block and unblock should be on the same page.
    • Yea, that would be really nice. Maybe just a dropdown menu with block/unblock on it? -GregAsche 03:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, yes, yes PLEASE! I keep losing the unblock area (I've only had to do it a handful of times before) —Ilyanep (Talk) 06:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
    Would be inclined to break this into a new page, per above suggestion. Easier to find, however. Rob Church Talk 12:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • If a block already exists, and the user is blocked again, it should forward the administator to a warning page (ie. sort of like the one for when you are uploading an image with an existing filename on the server) ... and an option to ignore the warning.
  • On that warning page, it should show the last existing block, duration and comments, (ie. just a line), then there should be three options: the ability to block anyway, with the provisions given on the form, the ability to modify the block, and the ability to cancel. Natalinasmpf 23:44, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I'd be inclined to go back to the form with a warning above it, as per my proposal above. Hitting the block button a second time in that case would "confirm" the block. Rob Church Talk 23:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Hmm, perhaps it could be an edit conflict kind of style. Hitting the block button again (if there's no further conflicts) would confirm the block, but not if another block was reimposed. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 03:32, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Block logs[edit]

  • Searching for users should be improved. There should be an option of whether the searcher wants an "exact match", or wants a search result that includes all entries with that string. Administators could search for an IP range, and return all blocks for IP's within this range. Perhaps wildcards should be allowed. This should also occur on Special:Ipblocklist. Natalinasmpf 23:44, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Why not throw some regex in there? It would also be great if a search for a blocked IP address or CIDR block returned a range block that encloses that IP address or CIDR block. Demi T/C 23:47, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Internet registry links[edit]

Links like those would help admins that are trying to fight IP-hopping vandals. Titoxd 19:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
I'd oppose injecting that much stuff into each block list line. The thing is supposed to be easy to read, after all. We might consider a whole new special page providing access to that kind of stuff, however - useful network links, for instance. Trivial to code, and I can do that as a separate request if people like. Rob Church Talk 16:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
This would be massively helpful. Was it ever done? Could it be done? – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 16:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


Quite often when a user chooses an inappropriate username (s)he is blocked with a {{usernameblock}}. However, unless the name is pure disruption, the admin will want to allow a new account to be recreated by that IP. So the admin must remember the autoblocker. Could we have a 'username block' option, which would block the account, but leave the IP free? If the admin wants to block the IP - then he can simply use the present 'indef' block. --Doc glasgow 10:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

That's a separate issue with its own solution. I'm not working on that one this time round, although it might be me that does so in future. Rob Church Talk 16:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Broken Link[edit]

It appears that the link under Special:Unblock is broken. 07:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

That's quite possible, and I've corrected it with removal of the link. I updated the test wiki to CVS HEAD a while back and moved the demonstration code out of the way while I was doing so. I'll probably make previews available to anyone who asks once it's all done. Rob Church Talk 07:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


If this is going to become a proper log, surely Special:log/block should merely have a "currently running blocks" functionality on it, instead of duplication? James F. (talk) 15:33, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

This will continue to be a list of all blocks, but with more advanced sorting and filtering, and without all the unblocking code hacked in. Rob Church Talk 07:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Jump to talk on block/unblock[edit]

I think the block and unblock pages should have checkboxes to jump to the blocked user's talk page upon success, as well as a simple one line input box to simply add a one line comment (or a template) to the end of their talk page - saving a step in the blocking process and encouraging the admin to follow up with appropriate talk page commentary. - Triona@en-wikipedia

I quite like this idea. Thinking of a method for clean implementation. Rob Church Talk 07:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps the different options, as well as this feature itself, could also be enabled in the preferences. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 23:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)