Wikipedia talk:Blocking IP addresses

The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Wikipedia. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing, and don't panic.

Shortcut

WT:BAN

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 120 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

IPv6

Does 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)[reply]

Cascade-protected edit request on 3 October 2021

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4454:608:F500:2880:B536:8517:5D79 (talk) 08:07, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not done You haven't posted an actual request. To do so, it is typically written in an " change 'X' to 'Y' " format. - wolf 10:11, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IP-range blocked editors should be able to edit any Talk page within the range

There's another frustrating (stupid) issue about range blocks: it's recognised that with shared, dynamically allocated IP addresses, editors will progressively move between IP addresses within a range, according to whatever is 'automatically' assigned to them. But the block only allows them to edit the Talk page for one single IP address, rather than the Talk pages for all IP addresses within the range.

The latter would make more sense. For instance, suppose an IP editor has submitted an Unblock request while accessing WP through one IP address — so they have to post the Unblock request on that IP address's Talk page. It should be allowed for that IP editor to follow up on the Unblock request at a later time or date (if needed), even though they will likely have been assigned a new IP address by then.

—DIV
Support good-faith IP editors: insist that Wikipedia's administrators adhere to Wikipedia's own policies on keeping range-blocks as a last resort, with minimal breadth and duration, in order to reduce adverse collateral effects; support more precisely targeted restrictions such as protecting only articles themselves, not associated Talk pages, or presenting pages as semi-protected, or blocking only mobile edits when accessed from designated IP ranges.
(49.179.9.115 (talk) 12:53, 16 April 2023 (UTC))[reply]

Wikify "collateral damage"

I say ~~again~~ yet again:

under "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))[reply]

Done --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shared IP and account creation blocks: Could this policy be made less awkward?

(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)[reply]