2005 NoteEdit

Just a note - I tested blocking "User:Rdsmith4" (rather than the norm, simply "Rdsmith4"), and discovered that, while "User:" is indeed unnecessary, the block works nevertheless. — Dan | Talk 05:11, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Thats useful to know, but I cheated and edited my monobook.js to have the block and blocklog tabs when I'm on a userpage. See Image:Whos wiki.jpg. Btw you're welcome to use it. Who?¿? 06:27, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Tar manual linkEdit

RexNL removed a "dead link" to the tar manual, but it's actually been moved here. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 07:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I noticed this a while ago, and coulsdn't find the MediaWiki page. Iolakana|T 14:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

UpdatingEdit

I've done a bit of updating to reflect the new changes; a group review and rewrite is probably also in order. Essjay (Talk) 12:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Great job, Essjay! --Siva1979Talk to me 20:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I've updated this a bit further: many people have been treating AOL dynamically-allocated addresses like AOL proxies, and limiting blocks to these to 15 minutes or less. There is no need to do this: there are over five million addresses in the AOL dynamic address pool, compared to than a few hundred AOL shared proxies; as a result, collateral damage to these addresses should be minimal, although it is relatively easy for users to get new ones; hence the recommendation that blocks in these ranges should not exceed a day or so. -- The Anome 10:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Minor overhaulEdit

I've overhauled the page somewhat to make it easier to read, simplify reference, and reduce the excessive length. I changed the instructions from point to prose form, merged the multiple related headers to point-form under a single header, reduced the font size of the AOL ranges reference table, updated various details (ie, one can block account creation as well as write access), and otherwise tweaked it. One major benefit to the changes is that one can use the actual form in reasonably high resolutions without scrolling. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 06:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Split informationEdit

I moved the information on blocking IPs, which was quite fragmented and overly verbose on this page, to Wikipedia:Blocking IP addresses. I combined information from various sources onto that page and linked to other pages for more in-depth information, and updated some outdated information. I left two tables on this page of IP ranges administrators should not block without reading up on. The block log is thus somewhat more useable, since it can be viewed on a single page again. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 05:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Reverted by Freakofnurture. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 02:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Public relations implicationsEdit

How do I make this section small? <small> does not appear to work.Geni 09:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

You don't. This section is important. It is not to be made difficult to see or read. Kelly Martin (talk) 12:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Interesting claim but false. Something like 99.9% of blocks don't involve it. It also fails to cover Canada (we know they have edited), Australia, Scotland, New Zealand, the problem of Germans expanding their activities beyond de (they after all were the first to try). You then have the issue that admins are unlikely to carry out range blocks (particular of anything other than /24) without having a pretty good knowledge of what is going on. Thirdly in most cases the block has only been carried out after we found out who was behind the IP. Fourthly admins have this habit of looking on the talkpages of the people they block (something to do with checking they have been warned and putting up notices informing they have been blocked that kind of thing) which ought to provide sufficient warning. Fifthly the message in its current form is of limited use since it fails to explain how to contact the Communications Committee and exactly what /20 (you don't think most admins know that generally knowing that /24 knocks out the last 3 numbers is enough). Sixthly it fails to deal with the problems of autoblocks.
admins are not completely stupid they do tend to know when to be careful they don’t need great be warning messages messing up their block page. If you feel the need to be kept informed there are better ways of doing it.Geni 13:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, what are the better ways of doing it? --Siva1979Talk to me 14:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Well normaly we have found talk page messages surfice. For now I have placed it along with the AOL IP adresses although that is only a short term solution. The communications committee has 19 members and presumerbly more time to think about this than I have. Since they appear to be trying to take responsibilty for various areas of the mediawiki namespace I think they would say that you should really ask them.Geni 14:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, but your convenience is not the issue here. Stop editing this. If you persist you may find yourself the first person desysoped by order of the Board. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
So do you have any counter arguments?Geni 15:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
The major PR problem so far has been Congress. We'd like to add the Canadian Parliament but we can't find their IP addresses just now; when we do we'll add them. Whether or not admins carry out range blocks is irrelevant; admins are responsible for knowing what they're blocking and this is notice to admins of a policy change that was forced by the needs of the Communications Committee. This in no way alters the decision whether or not to block; it merely reminds admins of their obligation to inform the Foundation for certain blocks and of their obligation to be civil and reasonable in using the blocking ability. People do NOT always read the talk page, and anyway this is too important to leave to a talk page notice that may be vandalized or otherwise missing. Your fifth point is incoherent, so I simply cannot respond to it.
This reporting requirement is now an obligation of all admins. If you do not wish to comply with it, you may resign your adminship by making a request at Meta:Requests for Permissions. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
1.nyet we have had problems with german lot a while back. Admins carrying out range blocks know who they are blocking (mostly exactly how AOL allocates IPs is somewhat complex). If you want to be kept informed I suggest getting the devs to get you and RSS feed or the like which could cover autoblocks as well. Obviously that will take time and in the meantime yes we will have to inform you (although you could make that less complex). I have shown how to alter talk page templates so that they are imposible to miss. I have also provided you with the Template:AOL ranges option which you have largely ignored.
you must consider the problem that as you start to load more stuff onto the page people will start to ignoreing it. then what are you going to do?Geni 18:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • How about a new box, to sit over by the AOL box, with this information. Sample: {{User:Xaosflux/Sandbox9}}, which produces:
This seems to inlcude all of the information above, plus links, plus the email address and a directive, in a compact size that may also be used in other locations as needed. — xaosflux Talk 01:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't really care how you format the information, as long as the notification requirement remains very visible to admins. We have new admins almost every day these days, and they need to understand the importance of this issue. Efforts to minimize the impact of this requirement will be unwelcome as a result. Kelly Martin (talk) 02:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I've spammed the talk pages of everyone who's edited this recently, if no objects will add this in in a day or so. — xaosflux Talk 02:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Why can't we can't just plug this into the end of the AOL box like we did with NTL back in the day?Geni 10:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Because representatives of the press don't generally call the Wikimedia Foundation office asking why we blocked AOL or NTL. Kelly Martin (talk) 11:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
To Freakofnurture, regarding your reversion (we had it perfect before this); from the messages on this page, it's pretty clear that perfect is not where this is. — xaosflux Talk 12:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Kelly trying to dodge the question is unhelpful. The new box aproach has much the same effect as extending the AOL box. So what is the problem with extending the AOL box.Geni 12:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Specificially, the AOL box has other uses, making it be more then an AOL box takes away from them. — xaosflux Talk 00:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I've put it back to Kelly's version, no box, with a few changes: "public relations implications" is a much less useful heading that "blocks of governmental IP ranges". I really think the prose version is more explanatory. The warning about the blocks is necessary; I'd like to at least give a nice clear explanation to admins as to *why*. (Speaking as one of your friendly neighborhood press contacts who has to answer these people's questions, yes.) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 01:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Further details can be found at Wikipedia:Sensitive IP addresses. Adding specific instructions about what to do in a specific case of a shared IP in terms of block length is insulting. Admins block shared IPs all the time. Knowing to generaly keep the blocks rather short is standard stuff.Geni 07:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

formatEdit

The AOL box should float in the top right, so that it does not extend past the text, which, for me is shortened by the fact that I do not need to readthispart:

  • In general: Do not block any IP address indefinitely unless it is an open proxy.
  • Proxy servers: Some ISPs use proxy servers so that a large number of users share a single IP, so that blocks can affect a many innocent users. For example, see the table of AOL IP addresses to the right (see dealing with AOL vandals). Please check "Block anonymous users only" when blocking in these ranges, or keep the block to 15 minutes or less. Administrators and developers will generally clear such blocks promptly because of the collateral damage.
  • Dynamically-allocated IP addresses: Unlike proxy server addresses, dynamically-assigned IP addresses change relatively slowly and are typically only used by a single person at a time. Although blocking these will cause far less collateral damage, a single dynamica address will still be used by multiple users over time, so please do not block such addresses for more than a few days.

If you don't know about this, you should read up on it before pushing the block button to begin with. Also, please stop putting the AOL box and the government IP ranges inside the "readthispart" div, because the range numbers in that box are actually useful, unlike these bullet points, and I'd prefer for them not to be hidden by the "readthispart" attribute. As one editor famously phrased it, I'll revert till doomsday. —freak(talk) 16:45, Aug. 24, 2006 (UTC)

An informative edit summary ("moved AOL box out of hideable div (useful reference)") would have prevented any misunderstanding. :) // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 23:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


even more eye catchingEdit

Ok so we now have coloured text surrounded by a thick coloured box. Should be somewhat more eye catching than plain black text. Short of using the blink tag there are not many ways to make the text harder to miss (please no one use the blink tag).Geni 23:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Okey box now tells you to take care with block messages (although I think this runs into WP:BEANS).Geni 01:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Looks great! Definitely doesn't run into WP:BEANS in my opinion. No one can see this special page unless they're an admin and what's the chance they'll find that template in the template space? —Mets501 (talk) 12:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

OrderEdit

I'm putting the numbers in order, to make them easier to find. Rich Farmbrough, 11:35 21 November 2006 (GMT).

IP listsEdit

Some clarification of these lists would seem to be warranted.

  • Are AOL IPs a continuing issue, now that proxies are blocked? For non-proxy AOL IPs, is there any reason they would be different from any other ISP?
  • Clearly, the Communications Committee does not need to be notified if the toolserver is blocked; the toolserver is completely different from the others listed under sensitive IPs.
  • Canada was added after the U.S. and U.K. ones. Is Canada really warranted on the sensitive IP list? Does the Communications Committee really care about the Canadian government IPs such that an admin "must notify the Wikimedia Foundation Communications Committee immediately" in order to address "political and public relations implications"? If Canada needs to be included, why not Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, South Africa, and India?
  • What are the standards for other IPs? Should any newsworthy item be included, and for how long? Or, how many IP addresses are there that have thousands of users routed through them?
  • The longer the list, the less effective it becomes.

Centrxtalk • 23:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Drop down and custom block reasonsEdit

In this current interface, the text for drop down and custom block reasons says this: "You may select an automated reason from the drop down list or write a custom one." Now, I've seen a lot of administrators, and myself, use both the drop down and a custom reason. I'm thinking it might be worth changing the text to the following (the boldings highlight the changes):

"You may select an automated reason from the drop down list and/or write a custom one.'"

"You may select an automated reason from the drop down list or write a custom one, or include both if you prefer."

Since there was these two alternatives, and because this is a MediaWiki page, I decided to discuss this change first rather than simply making it. Thoughts? Acalamari 19:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

  • and/or, KISS. — xaosflux Talk 23:37, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
    • I thought that choice looked better too; I've gone ahead and added it in, but if anyone wishes to revert or change it, I would be happy to continue this discussion. What did you mean by "KISS" though? Acalamari 00:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

protected edit requestEdit

{{sudo}}

MediaWiki:Blockiptext#GovernmentIps and Wikipedia:Blocking IP addresses#Sensitive IP addresses are rather different. Should they be the same? – Gurch 03:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

  • I'm pretty sure they should.   Done (and simplified markup so the list can be copied as it is updated) —Random832 16:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Toolserver: new addressEdit

{{editprotected}} Please update the urls using the following code

[{{fullurl:tools:~krimpet/rbhelper.php|db=enwiki_p}} Rangeblock finder]
[[tools:~krimpet/torcheck.php|TOR check]]

Dispenser 18:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

  Done Thanks – Luna Santin (talk) 22:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Protected edit requestEdit

Now that Wikipedia has been blacklisted as a child pornography website by the UK's Internet Watch Foundation, UK ISPs have had to route all Wikimedia traffic through transparent proxies. That means that all UK customers of certain ISPs appear to be editing from the following IP addresses, regardless of their actual IP address:

Blocks of these IP addresses therefore affect legitimate contributiors. They should not be hardblocked under any circumstances, as this will render many contributors, such as myself, unable to edit. Blocks of registered users editing from these IP addresses will lead to autoblocks that affect many legitimate contributors, such as myself.

Can something about this be added to this page? -- Gurch (talk) 17:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

never mind, someone already did it -- Gurch (talk) 17:03, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}
The list, which also appears on at least one other page, is now at {{UK ISPs' Transparent Proxies}}, for ease of consistent updating. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I've implemented that template on the page, though I protected it as part of that so that vandals can't vandalize the page we use to block them (which would simply be silly). {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 07:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Now that this is all over, can we remove them? I would but I'm not sure if the IPs are still grouped like that. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :D 02:51, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Autoblocks on botsEdit

I disagree with this item for 2 reasons: first I don't think we ought to cover every possible screw up an admin could do with the block button or the page would get very long pretty soon. If a blocking a bot also blocks other bots, that is obviously a concern but since the ToolServer is exempt from autoblocks this should not happen. However, while not autoblocking the user running the bot is a courtesy (and common sense, most of the time), this is by no way required by policy and not as important as not indefblocking IPs, giving a heads up to the office when blocking an important IP and be careful with shared IPs. -- lucasbfr ho ho ho 18:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The thing is that it is happening, User talk:Lightmouse#Please unblock IP block. It would seem that either the whitelist needs some tweaking or Lightbot isn't on the toolserver. I've asked at Wikipedia talk:Bot policy for some comments as I would be interested if this is a problem for a lot of bot users or just a small group. The solution may differ depending on the number of problem autoblocks. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 19:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
The whitelist will only cover those users who run their bots of the toolserver, it can't be expected to provide cover to all users of bots, that is unworkable. The issue here is that most admins don't know about, or think about, disabling autoblocks when blocking bots. When Lightbot was blocked, one admin did disable it, one admin didn't. Admins aren't infallible and this isn't going to destory the wiki if it isn't up there, it is simply meant to remind admins about what to do. Woody (talk) 20:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I've never blocked a bot before but it was only after noticing Lightbots blocking that I saw Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Setting block options. I don't think that blocking bots is common and it does no harm to have a reminder on the page. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 21:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

WikimediaEdit

{{editrequested}}

Please replace the secure server range (which was never correct to begin with) with "Wikimedia services 208.80.152.0-208.80.155.255" which includes the current home of the secure server. The currently listed range included part of the Tampa cluster but is no longer in use. Dragons flight (talk) 19:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I also added 66.230.200.0–66.230.200.255 per this discussion at Village Pump (technical). Regards, Woody (talk) 01:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC) Strike that, just re-read what was written here and there and have removed the Tampa range. Regards, Woody (talk) 01:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

U. S. Senate IP RangeEdit

Could the IP range possibly be expressed as "156.33.0.0/16"? —Animum (talk) 19:32, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Toolserver IPsEdit

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 04:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Please remove the toolserver from the table of sensitive IPs, per the result of the above-linked discussion. Thanks. Anomie 19:08, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
  Done. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits|}} 19:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

IPv6 update requestedEdit

Please update this with the IPv6 addresses from Wikipedia:Blocking IP addresses, using separate table column for IPv6 and IPv4 addresses.

Please also use CIDR notation for all ranges where possible, for consistency purposes.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:23, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Can you create a mockup of the new page? This will require work as these tables are a bit bigger than the existing ones. Perhaps put it at MediaWiki:Blockiptext/sandbox. Rjd0060 (talk) 04:44, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
That actually looks like an existing message ... Not sure, but a draft can go somewhere. Rjd0060 (talk) 04:45, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
As a non-admin I can't edit that subpage either.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:49, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Update: Created at MediaWiki talk:Blockiptext/NewIPTable.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:02, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Done. Looks good. Thank you. Rjd0060 (talk) 05:12, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
One tiny correction - the Canada government range begins with 192.197.67.0, not 192.197.64.0.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:25, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Fixed. Rjd0060 (talk) 05:47, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Text change requestEdit

Please change "listed on the right" to "listed above", per the MoS. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:19, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, so   Done --Redrose64 (talk) 23:03, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Sensitive IP addressesEdit

Why is the 91.198.174.0/24 range not mentioned in the Sensitive IP addresses table? The /24 range is assigned to the servers located at Amsterdam. 91.198.174.192/27 is currently indefinitely soft-blocked to prevent bots from editing while logged out. Also I don't understand why there are both, 185.15.56.0/22 and 185.15.59.192/27. /22 range covers up to 185.15.59.255 and /27 upto 185.15.59.223. Why should they be mentioned twice? I'm not familiar enough with IPV6 but maybe someone could look at those too. --Glaisher [talk] 05:40, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

  Not done for now: I've disabled the edit request, as it's not entirely clear what action you're asking for here. Once you have a specific request for an edit that's backed up by consensus, please re-enable the request. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 08:22, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 17 June 2014Edit

In the IP addresses section, please replace:

<font color="red">'''Blocks of governmental IP ranges:'''</font>

With:

<span style="color: #F00;">'''Blocks of governmental IP ranges:'''</span>

As the <font> tag is obsolete. Thank you. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 01:29, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

  Donexaosflux Talk 02:37, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

WikiEdu dashboardEdit

198.89.127.88 is used by teachers and students participating in WikiEducation Foundation projects for certain edits. (It is not quite a proxy, so adding it to the XFF whitelist is not trivial. See phab:T110235 if you are interested in the details.) All of those edits are made logged-in and follow similar patterns. Might be worth including in the sensitive IP list. --Tgr (WMF) (talk) 23:51, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Tgr (WMF). We'll work on getting XFF set up where appropriate. --Sage (Wiki Ed) (talk) 23:53, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
I've added 198.89.127.88 to the list, for what it's worth — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:30, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Template:Sensitive IP addressesEdit

Pursuant to a discussion at the village pump, I was minded to replace the current text that contains the "sensitive IP address" list with the list at Template:Sensitive_IP_addresses, so that the list can be synchronized with the one at Wikipedia:Blocking_IP_addresses#Sensitive_IP_addresses. Any objections? The template may need a few edits but I wanted to gauge support or opposition for the general concept first.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:30, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

That seems fine - note, WMF is checking if they want to be involved in this anymore (see User_talk:Mdennis_(WMF)#Sensitive_IP_Addresses). — xaosflux Talk 22:59, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
There are various tools that maintain their own lists as well it seems (like Huggle). — xaosflux Talk 22:59, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
One week with no objections, seems like it's ready for implementation now. Xaosflux, I presume that Template:Sensitive IP addresses should be reprotected in this case? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:38, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I replaced this page table with the template, and re protected it. Still no official word from WMF. — xaosflux Talk 22:08, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Jo-Jo Eumerus WP:SIP may as well just use the template as well, so at least on enwiki we have the changes in only TWO places (the sysop.js too...). — xaosflux Talk 22:09, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Mr. Stradivarius plans to provide a module that will provide the required lists of IP addresses in the required formats, from one master list. We have been working on Module:IP as a first step. Johnuniq (talk) 23:08, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

───────────────────────── @Xaosflux: I did consider to apply the template to WP:SIP but it needs a way to center it. Further, there are two lists of IP addresses there that need to be handled.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:26, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Jo-Jo Eumerus ComCom seems to be hanging us out to try - so this may need to just be "IP's that enwiki cares about" soon, possibly we should merge these lists together for now? — xaosflux Talk 14:00, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

"Block anonymous users only" optionEdit

I removed the text "please ensure that Block anonymous users only is checked to limit collateral damage to innocent users" since no such option seems to exist. I'm assuming that is the default, since there is an option to "Prevent logged-in users from editing from this IP address". Please correct me if I'm wrong. Paul August 12:05, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Return to "Blockiptext" page.