Wikipedia talk:Blocking IP addresses
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 120 days may be auto-archived by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 4. |
IPv6
editDoes it make more sense to indefinitely ban specific, vandalism-only IPV6 addresses? Aren't those a lot less likely to be recycled? -- Beland (talk) 07:37, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- I see at least three problems with doing that. First, if you make that recommendation, or allowance, then you're going to get people indefinitely blocking shared individual IPv6 IPs. For example, AT&T uses a lot of those. Second, indefinite is often a maintenance issue, making it hard to review lists and pull out things which should not be there. Lastly, if they're less likely to be recycled, then they're more likely to change and it's kind of pointless to block them forever. -- zzuuzz (talk) 09:03, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
Wikify "collateral damage"
editunder "Range blocks" I suggest linking the term "collateral damage" to WP:COLLATERAL.
(If you disagree, tell us why.)
—DIV (49.179.9.115 (talk) 13:00, 16 April 2023 (UTC))
Done --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Shared IP and account creation blocks: Could this policy be made less awkward?
edit(N.B: I've searched the Village Pump for a better place to query this, but for a narrow case under a specific policy the Policy Talk page appears better suited to this. Please steer in the correct direction if not. :-)
I've just joined Wikimedia to progress some of the mirroring work I've been doing with the non-English WP database dumps (See my User page). For reasons of disability/low income I use a cellular provider (O2 UK) for Internet access, whose IP ranges tend to be blocked from editing and account creation. This makes good sense from the security/anti-vandalism perspective, but it also means contributors on these IP ranges have to create accounts by using the third-party service, which takes 3-4 days and is rather frustrating when those IP ranges are the only ones available to you and you know other users (Without disability and with fixed IP addresses) can create accounts by themselves without incurring any delays.
Is there some other way by which users trying to sign-up through shared IP ranges which have been WP:BANned could prove themselves as legitimate users without the delay of the third-party service? Part of me thinks some form of advanced CAPTCHA (e.g: Play a random video clip, have user identify things seen and heard in the video) could be one way to address the issue, as could having a system where one validates their e-mail address (Making them identifiable) and associates this with their browsing session, which then unlocks access to account creation/recovery functions for that specific browsing session (Via session cookies) which are ordinarily blocked to WP:BANned IP ranges.
This is just an attempt at a proposal - Which may or may not be in the best place for it (And if the latter; My apologies) - But with many people in my position having to access the internet using budget ISPs, shared IP ranges, and encountering blocks of this nature because the more abusive contingent tend to spoil it for the rest of us, some form of self-service user validation designed for these cases would reduce the delay and inconvenience down to something a bit more tolerable.
ᛒᚱᛟᚴᛂᚾ ᚢᛁᚴᛁᚾᚷ (Broken Viking|T·C) 10:14, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, the constant balance we have to juggle is that vandals and trolls can also solve CAPTCHAs and create email addresses. There are a lot of persistent vandals. Having said that, admins should probably (and often do) more often consider allowing account creation from range blocks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 09:08, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
De facto guideline?
editI noticed some parts appear to be de facto best practices (particularly the part on sensitive government IP addresses). I was tempted to tag them with "guideline|section=yes" but I wanted to first get input to see what parts indeed represent a widespread best practice. Aasim (話す) 23:02, 9 August 2025 (UTC)
- I really wouldn't want to upgrade that part to a guideline unless we hear from ComCom (or some other related com) - I'm reminded of m:Meta:Requests_for_deletion/Archives/2019#Communications_committee/Notifications. This page is a bit of a random collection; there's some good explanations, but I'm not sure guideline is the best status for really any part of it. -- zzuuzz (talk) 00:13, 10 August 2025 (UTC)