→Toolserver IPs: new section |
m →Toolserver IPs: fixing anchor |
||
Line 186: | Line 186: | ||
== Toolserver IPs == |
== Toolserver IPs == |
||
As it is against both toolserver and enwiki policy for bots to edit while logged out, a proposal to permanently soft-block the toolserver IPs has begun at [[Wikipedia talk:Bot policy#Proposal to |
As it is against both toolserver and enwiki policy for bots to edit while logged out, a proposal to permanently soft-block the toolserver IPs has begun at [[Wikipedia talk:Bot policy#Proposal to softblock Toolserver IP addresses|Wikipedia talk:Bot policy]]. [[User:Anomie|Anomie]][[User talk:Anomie|⚔]] 04:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 08:41, 18 May 2010
Failsafes against large ranges
Are there failsafes so that the IP range *.*.*.* isn't blocked? --ÆAUSSIEevilÆ 22:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- Yes. MediaWiki does not allow range blocks affecting more than 65,536 IP addresses; that is, it allows a maximum CIDR range of /16, or 0.0.0.0–0.0.255.255. Blocking every possible IP address would require 65,025 individual range blocks. For more information, see m:Range blocks. —{admin} Pathoschild 05:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Blocking IP addresses in the UAE
Please can someone explain to me why UAE IPs keep getting blocked (usually by KhoiKhoi, Can't Sleep, Clown Will Eat Me, and one other name I've forgotten now).
When I read this page, it doesn't make sense. In the UAE, we are legally required (with some locational exceptions - eg Free Zones) to connect through the ISP's (Etisalat) proxy server, which assigns IP addresses dynamically. According to information on this page, any blocks are undesirable and if regarded as necessary, should only be temporary?
khoikhoi sent me this link as an explanation but I still don't get it. http://ecompany.ae/eco/isp/english/services/dialin/index.html
Thank you. signature 07:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- You could always just register an account, which is also what WP recommends for people that have to use a shared IP (students using the internet from their college's computers, for example). TJ Spyke 03:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Tor proxies
Please have a look at this discussion on the blocking of Tor proxies: Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy#Softblock for Tor proxies. —Babelfisch 07:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Merged from Wikipedia talk:Sensitive IP addresses
Other large governmental users
Should this list be perhaps expanded to included, for example, Saudi Arabian IPs, which all come through proxy servers? Physchim62 (talk) 15:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- This list is primarly used for editors FROM large government bodies, as a reminder to admins placing blocks on them to use extra clear block reasons. — xaosflux Talk 02:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I concur - where's the CIA, the DOD/DNS, 'etc? Raul654 22:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
- We may already block the CIA, and perhaps other intelligence agencies, somewhat. They use their own IP at least some of the time, but they also use anonymizing services, which we block when find out about them. A company that the CIA used went out of business, but they might be using a different one now. -- Kjkolb 09:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Government of Canada
Do you think we could add the IP addresses allocated to the Government of Canada to this list? The range is 192.197.77.0 - 192.197.86.255, or in CIDR notation:
- 192.197.77.0/24
- 192.197.78.0/23
- 192.197.80.0/22
- 192.197.84.0/23
- 192.197.86.0/24
-- Denelson83 22:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, go right ahead. Then leaev a note to ComCom if they need to be added to the admin directions. — xaosflux Talk 02:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment
If I understand the current blocking implementation correctly, putting an exlicit, indefinite anon-only block on this IP should prevent any autoblocks from having effect. This would mean that toolserver bots can't edit without logging in, but I think that should be considered a feature. Should we do this? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
moved from Wikipedia:Sensitive IP addresses. --Daniel Olsen 07:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Sensitivity
If blocks to these IP's would be so sensitive to the higher-ups at Wikipedia, why can't there just be a programming feature that allows only the highest levels of decision makers at Wikipedia to block these IP's?Tragic romance 12:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- The IPs may still need to be blocked, as vandalism can and has come from them. If one of these IPs is insanely vandalizing, it would not be efficient to call a higher-up and wait a few hours, while in the mean time it vandalizes hundreds of pages that all need to be reverted. Instead, the IP is temporarily blocked, and the political and public relations issues can be addressed. —Centrx→talk • 23:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Qatar
Just wondering whether or not the Qatar ISP IP addresses (and any other IP address, which if blocked would effectively block another country or large region of users) shouldn't be listed on this page ? --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 00:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Parliament of Sweden
I recently left a message on a IP user's talk page, and did a check to see if the IP address was shared. The address, 194.52.83.21, came back as the Parliament of Sweden. Seems they have the range 194.52.83.0-194.52.83.255, might be good to know. --Oden 00:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Template?
Is there a template to identify these IPs on their talk pages? If not, should one be created? Either way would it be useful for SelketBot to tag them like it does with {{SharedIP}} and {{SharedIPEDU}}? --Selket Talk 23:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I would like to link a good description of How to determine if an IP address is shared and by whom from Template_talk:SharedIP#See_also. I feel such a section would do well in this article. I have used network-tools.in for trace and whois, but often end up with unclear results, ( 63.3.11.2 = uu.net = verizon ; but what to put with {{SharedIP}} ) Comments? ∴ here…♠ 21:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- I guess I wasn't very clear. Will someone experienced with using the {{SharedIP}} template and blocking IP addresses please detail: How to determine if an IP address is shared and by whom , for use in this article and elsewhere? ∴ here…♠ 19:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
What about IPv6 Addresses? Does MediaWiki support IPv6 users and blocking?
--FastLizard4 (Talk•Links•Sign) 22:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Hughes Net
Hughes Net operates in 69.19.0.0 - 69.19.127.255 There is at least one complaint of inappropriate blocking (Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee#Hughes_Network). Is there a range block or some other problem? Fred Bauder 19:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- As a Hughes Net user, I have noticed there seem to be a lot of problematic users on Hughes Net, and not only at Wikipedia. The problem is that those users get their IPs banned, then are later assigned a new IP (dynamic IP) and the ban is passed off to another, often harmless and subsequently frustrated, user. -- 66.82.162.14 (talk) 08:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Need some help with an IP
An anonyuser is semi-vandalizing pages with different similar IPs each time. User can be seen here in the revision history for Cliff Hangers, each time adding something to the caption of the image. First time was that he the contestant in the image is a "black contestant" (a few times), then a "male contestant", then "one contestant" (as opposed to simply "a contestant" as is normal). On its face, it could be good faith, but not en masse. One of the addresses also added a link to a person on the page Brad with the descripion "non-notable". It's not a mega-vandal, but it's pretty clearly someone just trying to be a smartass. I'm not sure exactly what to do about it, as the wp:vandal instructions aren't quite clear to me, and the template to put on the addresses was a bit confusing. Thanks TheHYPO (talk) 16:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Sensitive IP addresses
The table that automatically transcludes on the right side of the "Block user" page does not match up with the addresses listed here. For example, Qatar is listed on the "Block user" page as 82.148.96.68/31.
Where is that table actually maintained and would someone please update it? Thanks. Rossami (talk) 22:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- It's at MediaWiki:Blockiptext. Algebraist 15:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Block all IP addresses
All anonymous IP editing needs to be blocked. They're all vandals. This crap needs to stop now; it's seriously degrading the quality of our encyclopedia here. Dr. Cash (talk) 14:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
How do I look for all changes made by an IP range
user:Breathtaker operates under the 87.122 range to get around his block. I would like to be able to see all changes done by this range. I tried inputing "87.122.0.0/18" into the User Contribuitons page but that did not work. Any help would be greatly apreciated.--Dr who1975 (talk) 19:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Blocking an ebtire browser?
The other day Slakr blocked the range 195.189.142.0/23, which I think blocks all users of the opera mini browser (the best browser for pocket PCs and smartphones, which uses a central proxy server to improve download speed and readability on smaller screens). Until the other day I was able to edit using it without problems, now as soon as I hit the edit button I get the "your blocked due to using an open proxy" message. I haven't changed any settings. Can someone please unblock it and contact the Opera Admins if there are any concerns about how their servers/proxies are set up, but in the meantime let us use a decent browser for our mobile editing, rather than having to use the substandard alternatives. I have left a message on Slakr's talk page without any response.The-Pope (talk) 13:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Mobile Phone IP Template
I think Mobile phone carriers should have a specialized template such as:
--HereFord 22:24, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
- I don't see any objection to this myself, Hereford: you've already got a template that I can't find any fault in at all, so just go ahead and introduce the template into the mainstream. You might wish to list it at the matrix for user talk templates, Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace (specifically, #Other, "Page headers"); post a notice on the appropriate village pump, so folks are aware that the template is now being used; write up some documentation (useful guidelines); and have a dig for any user talk pages that could be tagged with this template, in the way of testing it "out there" (although it does appear to work perfectly well).
- With regards to whether it should be introduced or not, then I say yep, it seems like a good idea to me. ;)
- Anthøny 13:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- Its now at Template:MobileIPHereFord 13:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Tags documentation
Hi, for anyone who has experience with tagging IP pages, we are working on expanded docs to clarify how to determine which tag ({{ISP}}, {{SharedIP}}, {{whois}}, etc.) should be used on a given IP. Anyone who would like to help with this process, please feel free to join the discussion at Template talk:ISP. --Elonka 18:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
DoD IP Addresses
Do we have any DoD IP addresses on file? That should probably be added to the list. If we should add DoD addresses to the list, I (or an administrator) could try to contact DISA about it. Just my two-bits. Glacier Wolf 22:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- They used to have a class A allocated. Rich Farmbrough, 20:12, 12 December 2009 (UTC).
Updates required?
- I notice that m:Communications committee is tagged as out-of-date. Is this body still operating?
- After discussion at the pump (Toolserver IP editing logged-out again), the "Sensitive for technical reasons" section may need changing.
OrangeDog (τ • ε) 22:58, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- I don't know about ComCom. I would probably ask Cary or Jay what they best place to report these is (if its even still necessary). The Toolserver note is still mostly correct, as hardblocks will still break things, though its on the autoblock whitelist, so the comment about removing autoblocks isn't necessary. That ClueNet IP might be out of date as well. Mr.Z-man 20:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Impossible to edit?
I attend a high school in my home town, and occasionally use wikipedia. Ok, fine. I often use wikipedia, gosh. In any case, I also sometimes want to edit wikipedia. For example, this morning I noticed the "gigittybyte" included in the list of byte sizes. After a google search to confirm my hypothesis (there were literally 0 results) I decided that it was a piece of vandalism and needed to be deleted. So I clicked "edit this page" and the "this IP has been blocked for the following reasons:" page showed up.
I should point out that there were no following reasons that my school was blocked. It was just blocked. It then went on to say that if I logged into my account, I could then edit. So I logged in, you know, username: waladil password: ************. It logged me in, no problemo, I went back to the offending page, hit edit, and: blocked. At this point, I'm thinkin damn this is annoying. I used the secure login button. Still blocked. Giving up on trying to fix it myself, I decide to send a message to the guy who blocked us (it was something like sterwalkerstr, I wasn't paying that much attention, so I'm no doubt off by several letters). I head over to his page, and look for some way to talk to him. His talk page is blocked and I can't see a way to send a pm. Now I'm at the "oh hell this sucks" stage. I decide to edit my _own_ talk page and put something intentionally inflammatory there to catch the attention of an admin so hopefully they'd notice that a change needed to be made. Take a wild guess: BLOCKED!
Well, aside from the simple cathartic effect of ranting about this, the point is that apparently there is no way to get around an IP block (short of changing your IP, perhaps through proxies which my school blocks) even if you log in which is supposed to let you edit. Am I insane(er) or is there some sort of problem?
Eagerly awaiting some sort of response,
--Waladil (talk) 05:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- Although I'm not an expert on this, it's possible that your school's IP was hardblocked. This prevents all editing from the IP, apart from sysops and users with specially granted permissions. It's impossible to tell without seeing the block log, though. —LedgendGamer 05:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- That's quite possibly it. For one thing, it seems to fluctuate. Some days I can do stuff, others I can't. Also, I have internet at home, which is how I can do things on my userpage and such from home even if the school-block is being unreasonable. The really hilarious bit is that last year, a friend of mine (who was/is a bloody admin) was held out by the hardblock. Maybe Wikipedia should be more considerate of situations like that. --Waladil (talk) 06:46, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
IP block length
- "consider blocks over a period of months or years instead" [1]
I have been operating under the impression that we typically only block for years when the IP is an open proxy. In my opinion, blocks of up to one year are more than sufficient; and ensures that extended blocks of IPs are reviewed on an annual basis. Should this be noted on the project page? –xenotalk 16:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
- I'd say so. An IP is generally only blocked for a year or more in the case of:
- 1 year: School IPs subject to frequent abuse and several previous long-term blocks, extremely static IPs subject to the same
- 2-5 years: Open proxies
- Indefinitely: By authenticated request of a technical officer from a school or company to functionaries.
- Noting also that the latter occurs fairly infrequently. Hersfold (t/a/c) 20:51, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Generally true, and should be practice. However, if an IP repeatedly comes back days after a long term block expires and starts vandalising or picking up old habits, I would suggest that indef(-like) blocks would .. clear up a bit. Same goes for some static IPs who run into severe problems in many places, where an indef(-like) block may finally get the message through: don't come back here. There is always the unblock-mailing list or ArbCom to get it unblocked again. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:13, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
- The IP will eventually move on. So how long would you propose "indef-like" blocks be left in place for? Is reviewing such blocks on an annual basis really such a timesink? –xenotalk 13:20, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Mwaagh, one or two edits and immediately being blocked again does not have to be a timesink, indeed. But some IPs do take more than that. Its not that I don't agree with you, Xeno, but some IPs are just not worth even one edit .. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:52, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
- @xeno - In the case of a few school ips that I could dig up, per Dirk the original vandal may have moved on (progressed through grades, dropped out from smoking crack, became obsessed with Twilight and lost interest in vandalizing Wikipedia) but the behavior post-previous long term blocks was essentially the same. Basically, nothing good is coming from the anon users at that IP. This doesn't cover any logged-in edits from the IP, and its been my assumption on the long term school blocks that either (1) nobody anon actually cares that they are blocked since we don't see unblocks or (2) all useful editors at that IP have either resigned themselves to editing at home or have created accounts and are being productive / vandalizing under those. I do watchlist the schools I've placed long term blocks on to see if we get unblock requests, but my feeling is that in some cases years is a valid and useful guideline. Its not that its a timesink to review on a yearly basis, Xeno. Its more the scientist in me railing at having to recheck that 2+2=4 every year, and finding that it does indeed still equal 4 making a note to come back in a year and recheck it again. Syrthiss (talk) 13:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- I suppose my (perhaps overly) optimistic hope is that in the short time the IP is unblocked each year, we might snag a constructive contributor or two. –xenotalk 13:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- ...and IIRC, open proxy ips are blocked indef. Not 'years' or 'year'. At least that was the guideline back in olden days. Syrthiss (talk) 13:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- Open proxies are (these days) typically blocked for 5 years, not indef. –xenotalk 13:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- I think we need continuing education guidelines for admins then, tho at least to my credit I don't think I've done a proxy block myself since the guideline changed. Syrthiss (talk) 13:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- Nor I. We actually have a bot blocking proxies now, and it only blocks 2 months at a time. –xenotalk 13:22, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- Open proxy IPs are as varied as any other IPs apart from two things. They usually have be open, advertised, and static for at least a couple of days to be found and used; and some types of open proxies are hosted on dedicated servers which are a) often static for long periods and b) less likely to be reassigned to innocent users when the proxy inevitably closes. ProcseeBot only detects HTTP proxies which are often computers on dynamic, usually residential IPs which will typically be closed and reassigned within a couple of months. Blocks of these IPs for any longer than a few months stand a high risk of only causing collateral. These are the IPs typically used by spambots, vandalbots, Bonaparte, and Jvolkblum. Web proxies, such as those usually used by Runtshit are typically on static dedicated webhosts and can be blocked for longer without much fear of collateral for a couple of years. I've written a proxy-checking guide, linked in the see also section overleaf, to try and help educate admins on the difference between the types of proxies, how to and how not to check them, and how to determine their block length. IPs with open proxies are not all the same. Most only need to be blocked for a few weeks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- Nor I. We actually have a bot blocking proxies now, and it only blocks 2 months at a time. –xenotalk 13:22, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- I think we need continuing education guidelines for admins then, tho at least to my credit I don't think I've done a proxy block myself since the guideline changed. Syrthiss (talk) 13:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- Open proxies are (these days) typically blocked for 5 years, not indef. –xenotalk 13:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- @xeno - In the case of a few school ips that I could dig up, per Dirk the original vandal may have moved on (progressed through grades, dropped out from smoking crack, became obsessed with Twilight and lost interest in vandalizing Wikipedia) but the behavior post-previous long term blocks was essentially the same. Basically, nothing good is coming from the anon users at that IP. This doesn't cover any logged-in edits from the IP, and its been my assumption on the long term school blocks that either (1) nobody anon actually cares that they are blocked since we don't see unblocks or (2) all useful editors at that IP have either resigned themselves to editing at home or have created accounts and are being productive / vandalizing under those. I do watchlist the schools I've placed long term blocks on to see if we get unblock requests, but my feeling is that in some cases years is a valid and useful guideline. Its not that its a timesink to review on a yearly basis, Xeno. Its more the scientist in me railing at having to recheck that 2+2=4 every year, and finding that it does indeed still equal 4 making a note to come back in a year and recheck it again. Syrthiss (talk) 13:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- We have ips that have been vandalizing whenever they're not blocked for years on end. Some have been hives of vandalism for 3 or 4 years, a few for 5, 6, or 7 + years. When an IP has gone from warnings to short blocks up through a series of longer blocks up to a year long block, and comes back with further vandalism every time the block expires, I really see no need to give them a free vandalism spree once a year, with the inherent extra cleanup work by required of good Wikipedians and extra reblock work by admins. Say an ip has a long record of some 10 previous blocks, the last two being for a full year, what's wrong with making the next block 2 years, and if they do it again, 5 years? If something changes about the ip in the meanwhile they can request an unblock on their talk page. -- Infrogmation (talk) 21:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Plobelms with blocking IPs
People can change their IPs easily and continue vandalising. The IPs that are passed on affect innocent people. If you block the IP range, there will be many innocent people affected. For regestered accounts, those people can log out and use the same way.--219.74.14.141 (talk) 10:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
- This is why blocks are generally short in such cases, and need to be carefully examined. But yes, sometimes there is collateral damage, but there are also other methods of stopping such vandalism. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:20, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
But how?--219.74.14.141 (talk) 11:46, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
- How what? --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:53, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
How to deal with those types of vandalism. See, my IP has changed.--116.14.180.93 (talk) 13:09, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Toolserver IPs
As it is against both toolserver and enwiki policy for bots to edit while logged out, a proposal to permanently soft-block the toolserver IPs has begun at Wikipedia talk:Bot policy. Anomie⚔ 04:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)