Contents
- 1 Failsafes against large ranges
- 2 Blocking IP addresses in the UAE
- 3 Tor proxies
- 4 Merged from Wikipedia talk:Sensitive IP addresses
- 5 How to determine if an IP address is shared and by whom
- 6 IPv6 Addresses
- 7 Hughes Net
- 8 Need some help with an IP
- 9 Sensitive IP addresses
- 10 Block all IP addresses
- 11 How do I look for all changes made by an IP range
- 12 Blocking an entire browser?
- 13 Mobile Phone IP Template
- 14 Tags documentation
- 15 DoD IP Addresses
- 16 Updates required?
- 17 Impossible to edit?
- 18 IP block length
- 19 Problems with blocking IPs
- 20 Toolserver IPs
- 21 Bolditude
- 22 You may disagree, but...(indef blocking of IP addresses)
- 23 Addresses of organizations with a responsive IRT
- 24 Wide, rolling blocks
- 25 IP addresses of Qatar
- 26 Block Levels
- 27 IPv6
- 28 List of sensitive addresses
- 29 IP Blocks Useless?
- 30 Blocking IP address ineffective for most users....
- 31 Discussion on indefinitely blocked IP addresses
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)
IPv6 Addresses
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)
No, we're not. That is a flat-out lie based on WAY overgeneralization! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.9.48.198 (talk) 10:18, 15 August 2011 (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 entire 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)
Problems 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)
Bolditude
I've just added a section to the "policy" part of the policy. I don't think it's controversial in the slightest though; being good netizens and collaborating with the IRTs of organizations which are mature and responsible enough to be responsive to abuse reports is best for everyone involved.
Right now, I suppose that we can maintain the (short) list manually, and on this page — but I hope an increasing number of organizations will be willing to collaborate this way and we'll need to find a better way to make sure than admins who are considering blocking an IP or range can be made aware of an IRT that could handle the matter if there is one. — Coren (talk) 14:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
You may disagree, but...(indef blocking of IP addresses)
I consider virtually every block listed at Wikipedia:Database reports/Indefinitely blocked IPs to be illegitimate. As far as I am concerned, there should never be an indefinitely blocked IP address for an extended period of time. I can think of the very rare exception of a WP:OFFICE or perhaps even a OTRS action, but other than that, I would strongly disagree with indefinitely blocking IPs for any of the following reasons:
- -Death/legal threats - No more than a year for even the most severe
- -Tor/other open proxy - Set period of years, like 5. Definitely shouldn't be an indef block. I've unblocked tons of IPs within a couple years of being blocked as tor, after running a check and finding they are no longer Tor.
- -School administrator, bot owner, or someone else requests a block for their IP - IMO this should be treated like an open proxy and block 5 years. Maybe 8-10 at the most. But even schools change IP addresses sometimes, and an indef block isn't a good idea here.
- -Spam/vandalism bot - No more than a year
- -Other vandalism - No more than a year at once, except perhaps in extreme cases and multiple years of being blocked I could see going up to perhaps 2 years.
- -Sockpuppet/block evasion - No more than a year
- -BLP/copyvio/other long term abuse - No more than a year
- -Any other reason other than an office/otrs action - No more than a year
Even OTRS and office indef IP blocks, IMO, should eventually be unblocked. I think this policy more or less agrees with my assessment by stating that "IP addresses should almost never be indefinitely blocked. Many IP addresses are dynamically assigned and change frequently from one person to the next, and even static IP addresses are periodically re-assigned or have different users." I would submit that the only time the almost in almost never should be implemented is during an office or OTRS action, or perhaps some other very, very rare case. Thus, 99.9% of the IPs in the list I link above need to either be unblocked or have their block lengths changed. I would say consulting with the blocking administrator first is a good idea for anything somewhat recent (in the last year?) if for no other reason than to alert them of our policy on indef blocking of IPs, but consulting probably isn't necessary for older blocks unless there is some special note or something you don't understand about the block. Any thoughts on this? VegaDark (talk) 07:55, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- I look through that list from time to time, and unblock a few each time as time has passed on. It generally shrinks a bit each time it's updated. There are some that I've chosen to leave blocked indefinitely, knowing that I'll review them again in the future. Some are still open proxies, some are very static with some potentially very nasty people on the other end. However I agree that indefinite should almost never be used. They always say that indefinite is not forever, but unless someone goes around reviewing those blocks then they are forever.
- I have been helping for a long time to tone the policy down wherever it mentions indefinite blocks, in regards to IP addresses, and I have to say it's been working. You can fail an RfA these days for saying you'll indef an IP. There are still some old school admins who are stuck in their ways. I'd like to see the behaviour which caused the block to be completely detached from the block length in most cases. There is no reason at all why someone on a dynamic IP (perhaps switching IPs daily) issuing a legal or death threat, engaging in sockpuppetry, or egregiously violating BLP, should have their dynamic IP blocked for any longer than it normally would be for writing 'poop'. The same applies to open proxies which in many cases are dynamic and short lived. I definitely disagree with standard 5 year blocks for open proxies, unless due consideration is given to how they are run and hosted. I can't see any reason to block an IP for more than five years, even if it's been static for ten. All in all I think block lengths should be based directly on how static the IP address is, and the likelihood of vandalism continuing to stem from it with their next edit. -- zzuuzz (talk) 08:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Agree, and I've been going through the list and unblocked more than 20 so far. As for a 5 year block for open proxies, there are numerous open proxies indef-blocked on that list, so I was trying to be much more lenient by stating 5 years. I agree in general though that the block length should be based on how they are run and hosted, not to exceed 5 years- I could definitely live with, and perhaps support, a shorter period (3 to 4 years?). Also, I agree with the behavior thing. I've seen some indef blocks with reasons such as "defamed someone" without any prior blocks in the history, and it was run-of-the-mill vandalism that I'd have issued no more than a basic warning for. I think a good start is to clear out this list, and leave a note asking administrators to reverse their block for any new entries popping up on the list. VegaDark (talk) 01:49, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, the list was due for another review, and education is a good thing. As I say, I've checked a few proxies on that list, and found some that are still proxies, but I'll continue to review them. To me however a bigger problem exists in CAT:OP, comprising some 28,000 IPs, including over 7,000 dynamic IPs. There's also the non-templated ones, including a list of thousands arbitrarily blocked indefinitely by User:DerHexer some time ago (see this). The list mentioned above excludes all indefinitely blocked open proxies and checkuser blocks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 12:58, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- Ouch. I'd support a mass unblocking, but we would have to have a more centralized discussion about it. Now that we have a bot handling open proxy blocks (blocking for 2 months at a time), I don't particularly see an issue with flat out unblocking all open proxies and letting the bot deal with any that are still active. Would perhaps the village pump be the best place to bring this up? VegaDark (talk) 17:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Addresses of organizations with a responsive IRT
It's been suggested here [2] regarding the section WP:Blocking_IP_addresses#Addresses_of_organizations_with_a_responsive_IRT that "BT doesn't belong on that list, probably" - "based on recent lack of responsiveness". Might be worth removing BT, or adding a note that their responsiveness is in doubt and that any future responsiveness is noteworthy. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:09, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- I'll respond over there. — Coren (talk) 18:37, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- (The short of it, in case someone stumbles upon this conversation later, is that the range mentioned here covers web access by employees of BT and the team than handles internal abuse. They almost certainly have nothing to do with customers of BT Internet or their NOC, and have been responsive and responsible in the past.) — Coren (talk) 18:46, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Wide, rolling blocks
My ISP, Smart Telecom, has been blocked entirely from anonymous editing by their domestic customers well for well over a year, in a series of three-month and currently six-month blocks over the whole /17 range, with short gaps between the blocks. This appears to be being done to deal with a single "problem" editor, who has been blocked from their original account, but keeps popping up on different dynamically allocated IPs over that range. Not vandalism, not large-scale editing, but a particular set of tendentious editing practices by one person.
There strikes me as being a huge disconnect between this as a practice, and the idea of anonymous editing as being a "sacred principle" of Wikipedia. Is anyone able to offer any insight or suggestion as to how to bring the practice closer to the documented intention, or to bring the documentation in closer alignment with the apparent practice? Smartiger (talk) 22:36, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
IP addresses of Qatar
Can anyone check whether the two IP addresses mentioned in the Sensitive due to public relations section (82.148.96.68, 82.148.97.69) are still relevant? I see that there are no more contribution from those addresses since July 2008. Razvan Socol (talk) 05:18, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- I'd agree. Either they have moved, in which case it's probably worth a mention, or Qatar have become more liberal by using XFF or more IPs/proxies. I'm sure I've seen other Qatar IPs but I couldn't tell you if they're as critical as these used to be. These IPs are also listed at MediaWiki:Blockiptext, and used by some bots/scripts. -- zzuuzz (talk) 08:32, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Block Levels
Block levels show the ways IP addresses are blocked, defined by numbers.
1 - You must now enter CAPTCHAs after your writing to submit edits. This prevents bots without registered Wikipedia accounts using the IP address from submitting edits, and it is useful mainly if there are good contributions from that IP address but spambots are using the same IP address to vandalize Wikipedia.
2 - Submiting edits will only submit them as edit requests when editing anonymously (without an account). This should be used if there is both good contributions and vandalism from the IP address.
3 - Combine 1 and 2. This should be used just like level 2 but as an increased block in case spambots are submitting too many edit requests for vandalism.
4 - (default level) This IP address or IP address range has been blocked from editing without logging in, but you can still register from that IP address or IP address range while blocked. This should be used if only anonymous users using that IP address are vandalizing Wikipedia and those who register Wikipedia accounts use the accounts on the same IP address for good contributions.
5 - This IP address or range has been blocked from editing without logging in, and you can't register from that IP address or range while blocked. This should be used just like level 4, but as an increased block in case some people are registering accounts using the same IP address or range to continue vandalizing Wikiepedia.
6 - This IP address or range has been blocked from editing without logging in and, to submit every edit, entering a CAPTCHA, but you can still register from that IP address or range while blocked. This should be used if spambots using this IP address or range are cracking passwords to edit with accounts for vandalism.
7 - This IP address or range has been blocked from editing without logging in and even submitting edits when logged in will only submit them as edit requests, and you cannot register an account from this IP address or range. This should be used if there are good contributions from Wikipedia accounts, but humans who previously vandalized Wikipedia from that IP address or range are cracking passwords of accounts and using the accounts for vandalism.
8 - Just like level 7, but you must also enter a CAPTCHA to submit such edit requests. This should be used in case spambots are also cracking passwords of accounts and using the accounts for vandalism, to prevent too much vandalism edit requests from accounts used by spambots.
9 - This IP address or range has been blocked from editing whether editors on that IP address use an account or not, and you cannot register an account from this IP address or range. This should be used if the IP address or range is only used for vandalizing Wikipedia.
There is also semi-blocking, which only doesn't disable adding sections to talk pages or Wikipedia:Sandbox where the IP address or range is blocked, and editors using that IP address or range can still remove or edit sections added from that IP address or range.
--218.186.19.241 (talk) 08:57, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
- We have no method of implementing any of the levels except #4 and #5. I don't think we need such complications. When we warn a vandal, stop means stop, no mr.-nice-guy after the vandal does not stop.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:43, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
- Maybe we should [talk with MediaWiki's developers] about this if Wikipedia alone can't do it. At least have #9? --218.186.15.10 (talk) 11:54, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
- I forgot to mention, #9 is also implementable too (by disabling the "anon only" option on a rangeblock or singel IP block).Jasper Deng (talk) 01:54, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
- Maybe we should [talk with MediaWiki's developers] about this if Wikipedia alone can't do it. At least have #9? --218.186.15.10 (talk) 11:54, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
IPv6
This is really really early, but I'd like feedback on how acceptable would be my guideline here for IPv6. Comments are welcome on the talk page.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:30, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
List of sensitive addresses
I was just asked to block a Homeland Security address. I didn't, but I might have. I clicked on block & checked to make sure that the address wasn't on the list. It wasn't. But it is on this page (well, not this page but the main page). And yes, I now see that there is a blue link to this page - but no clue that it contains even more IP addresses, I'd assumed it was just a discussion of sensitive IP addresses and that I could see all sensitive IP addresses without clicking on another page. So, why can't they all be on the page I use for blocks? That might prevent unfortunate errors. Dougweller (talk) 15:50, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
IP Blocks Useless?
I have reason to believe that IP blocks won't do any good. A blocked user can trick Wikipedia into allowing them to edit and create an account. To prevent a user from editing, Wikipedia has to know who they are. To do this, it looks at their IP address. By changing their IP address (either by unplugging their router and plugging it back in or via the network settings on their computer), Wikipedia will think that you are someone else and allow you to edit and create an account as if you were never blocked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.27.128.9 (talk) 13:37, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
- I've responded already to this exact same remark that you posted over at WT:Blocking policy. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:41, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Blocking IP address ineffective for most users....
The Internet Service Provider, ATMC or Atlantic Telephone Membership corp, I'm using has multiple ranges, and I get sent to a different one each time I take the modem out the wall and plug it back in. This is obviously a problem for CheckUser, as it is easy to avoid detection. Fortunately, I do not not disrupt, but anyone using this IP will be sent to a different one each time they unplug the modem. No IP address should ever be blocked more then a year if it is not static, as mine is dynamic and I'm sure a lot of others have that. Of course, I'm just showing you the IP address do change frequently, and I am in IPV4 mode, but I do have IPV6 mode ready.... --209.188.60.186 (talk) 00:38, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Discussion on indefinitely blocked IP addresses
Hi, this message is sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion on the Village Pump located at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RFC: Indefinitely blocked IP addresses which may affect this policy page. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 20:51, 2 February 2014 (UTC)