Template talk:SharedIP

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Documentation

[edit] Usage

This template takes one argument, the name of the organization to which the IP address is registered.

Attention:

This IP address, SharedIP, is registered to Some organisation, and may be shared by multiple users. If the organization uses proxy servers or firewalls, this IP address may in fact represent many users at many physical computers.

For this reason, a message intended for one person may be received by another and a block may be shared by many. If you are editing from this address and are frustrated by irrelevant messages, you can avoid them by creating an account for yourself. In some cases, you may temporarily be unable to create an account due to efforts to fight vandalism; if so, please see here.

If you are autoblocked repeatedly, we encourage you to contact your Internet service provider or IT department and ask them to contact Wikimedia's XFF project about enabling X-Forwarded-For HTTP headers on their proxy servers so that our editing blocks will affect only the intended user. Alternatively, you can list the IP at Wikipedia:WikiProject on XFFs.

Caution should be used when blocking this IP or reverting its contributions without checking - if a block is needed, administrators should consider using a soft block with the template {{anonblock|optional comment}} as the block reason.

Note: In the event of vandalism from this address, abuse reports may be sent to your network administrator for further investigation.

IT staff who want to monitor vandalism from this IP address can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

[edit] See also

Template:SharedIPEDU is a modified version specifically for use with educational institutions.
How to determine if an IP address is shared and by whom. ( Wikipedia:Blocking IP addresses ).

[edit] Possible vandalism

There will invariably be some stupid chav who wants to vandalise Wikipedia at public IPs such as universities and schools, you will never be able to stop all students everywhere from vandalising and being stupid, so the solution is to either block them or deal with the damage.

A possible solution could be to block unregistered users that are on public IPs, but enable them to make an account and then be able to post.

This idea is also a good one: Maybe there should be a team defining these ip's and a permanent message that cannot be removed by the user of the IP (this template can, unfortunately)

--195.194.75.204 14:16, 17 November 2005 (UTC) (West Kent College)

If we can get this in widespread use, the "WHAT?! This isn't my IP!" messages may finally come to an end! But to use it, you have to know who owns the address block. --Ardonik.talk()^* 23:48, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

I know. I happen to be on AOL, so I can slap it on some pages before I log on. The rest we'll have to look up when we see a vandal at that address. Try [1] to look up the owner, that's all we'll need. — El Chico! ^Talk 00:00, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Also, try www.dnsstuff.com. Use the IPWHOIS Lookup. — El Chico! ^Talk 12:31, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:Blocking policy proposal - it proposes this. You can also add your comments. --Hughcharlesparker 10:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Confusion over use

I want to use this on my schools IP address talk page but my school does not own the IP address it uses. Is it OK to use this template? --Tomwalden 18:07, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Probably. No one actually owns an IP, they just register them. This should actually be called Template:Sharedip. By the way, what is your school's IP? I could look up its correct owner. — El Chico! ^Talk 20:28, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Okay, I've moved it to {{sharedip}} and I changed the wording so that it can be used for organizations that use IPs but don't own them. We'll have to keep the redirect at {{ownedip}}for a while though, at least until we can fix the pages that already link there. — El Chico! ^Talk 20:33, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have already looked up my schools IP address, and it is owned by Band-X Limited, a company that sells bandwidth.--Tomwalden 19:12, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Okay. Go ahead and use it then. I see you've added it to 213.232.79.240. good work. El Chico! ^Talk 19:31, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] A note to the anon. concerned

I've added the following text:

If you are the unregistered user concerned, note that this need not necessarily be the IP address of your machine. In many cases, it turns out to be the IP address of a proxy server that communicates between your browser and the Wikimedia servers. Such proxies are shared among a huge number of users compared to the number of persons using your particular machine. If you are frustrated by such irrelevant comments, consider that you could avoid them by creating an account for yourself.

to the template, in the hope that this would reduce the no. of "this is not my IP!" comments. Note that what the template said until now only helped sysops make decisions of whether to block & didn't explain much to the anon. who actually would complain about the wrong IP address. -- Paddu 20:00, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I added an "Attention:" line to hopefully get anons to read the notice before reading the other comments on the page. It may be too strong, but I'm not sure. - Evil saltine 08:34, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't seem strong. In fact it took me too long to notice it :). -- Paddu 19:48, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comast...

This template has been used for Comcast addresses. Yes, it is a dynamic IP, but only when you restart your modem (and only when it's off for a really long time). I don't know anyone who does this often (In the year I've had Comcast, I have only used 2 IPs). — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 04:11, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Seconding. I usually use Comcast and the only time I've had an IP change is when the MAC address of the machine directly connected to the Internet changes. I've managed to maintain my IP for several months. 12.75.98.103 18:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] TOC problems

I'm not sure if this is a bug related to the recent upfgrade, or not. I think the heading markup <H3>Attention:</H3> is causing problems. Notice how there is now an [edit] link displayed in the template, as if it were a section in an article. I think this <H3>...</H3> markup is being translated into section heading markup. The result is that pages with a lot of sections have the TOC embedded in this template. Also, the various [edit] links do not point ot the correct sections. This also affects {{AOL}} which is based on this template. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 22:24, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Also see Wikipedia:MediaWiki 1.5 bugs#h1-h4 codes are generating tocs. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 22:37, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
- I've changed the heading so it uses the '''...''' markup instead. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 00:26, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Shared IP confusion

Maybe there should be a team defining these ip's, and "locking" the user talk pages so a giant pile of irrelevant messages don't gum up the works for newbies without an account, and a permanent message - "You are using an shared ip address, if you are a new wikipedian, click HERE" and have it link to an intro message?

[edit] How to use this template

This should be the first section on the Talk page!

I presume you just go to a whois service and copy the name of the company? pfctdayelise 01:41, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

hmm? i thought they said anons couldnt edit? 24.254.92.184 01:31, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Additional links

Suggest linking something in "will attempt to contact
and report this as network abuse" to WP:ISPS. 12.75.98.103 18:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Consistency

Can someone change the attention notice on this template to be consistant with the one on {{ISP}}? I would do it myself, but the template is protected :\ --Mark Yen 19:22, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll do that (unless someone beats me to the punch while I type this). I thought they were closer after I made a minor change to {{ISP}} yesterday. :-/ — Kbh3^rd talk 19:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Great idea

Just placed this tag on User talk:62.236.76.8... How about a system where the IP could be banned, but a possibility to open a new account would remain? IMO that would keep the most vandals out, but let the "honest" people to contribute to Wikipedia. --Appelshine 12:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Banning an IP doesn't prevent someone on that IP from opening an account or reading Wikipedia. —Kenyon (t·c) 01:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A point of style

This template is appropriate for static IP's and small pools of IP's (e.g. a pool of 3-8 IP's). If the IP address is part of a large and dynamic pool, please use Template:DynamicIP. -- 71.141.230.44 20:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Why do we have both? 81.244.252.19 18:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Placement?

Where is this template supposed to be placed? It is listed under user namespace templates, but now that I've looked at this talk page, I get the feeling that I'm about to have to go move a whole lot of templates... -Mulder416 14:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I've answered my own question. I am moving this and {{isp}} to the user talk namespace templates page, where consensus has agreed that they be placed. -Mulder416 21:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redirecting to a single page

Any reason we don't redirect all of an ISPs pages to a single page? 81.244.252.19 18:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] category

you sure adding the category and thus removing the possibility of links is good? I've put in lots of these, and I almost always put a link in the parameter. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 19:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

This does seem to be a pretty common thing. I've added an optional, secondary parameter where a link can be put ({{SharedIP|Name ISP/School/etc|Link}}), which means that there's both categories and links. As I'm going to, over the next few days, be going over these talk pages to fix up the currently redlinked categories and any broken categories, like this, it's pretty easy for me just to move the link to another part of the template. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 21:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Having rethought this, I've changed the optional secondary parameter to the category. For example, ({{SharedIP|Link|Category name}}), which means that there's both categories and links. This shouldn't break things as much as they currently are. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 00:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. The categories didn't make sense for a lot of the usages -- there would have suddenly been a zillion red categories with only one member.--jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 02:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] my changes

I have added what I consider to be a vital piece of information to the template: However, you will still be unable to edit Wikipedia while the IP you are using is blocked. I've thought about adding another sentence referencing the Wikipedia:Blocking policy proposal and/or bugzilla:550, but I hesitate to link to either because the former might attract vandals, and the latter might be too "technical"(or "esoteric"? maybe "relying-on-knowledge-of-the-concept-of-bugs-in-software"?) to be useful to most people who will need to read this template. Phoenix-forgotten 18:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused. Phoenix-forgotten's change makes sense to me, but Paddu changed it to refer specifically to autoblocks. But creating an account won't help someone with a blocked IP no matter what kind of block it is, right? Does it matter whether it's an autoblock, or whether the IP has been manually blocked? --Allen 18:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "only block in case of extreme vandalism"

I think this notice is without consensus (and goes against actual practice). I'm going to remove it. If there are good reasons to reinstate it, please discuss first. --Nlu (talk) 19:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but it seems to have reappeared. It would seem to me that there is much less reason to have it now that the new blocking mechanism doesn't affect registered users as the collatoral damage is reduced. Kcordina ^Talk 11:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Blocking policy proposal

As a result of Tim Starling's recent work on MediaWiki Bug 550, it's now possible to soft block IP addresses. I've added the line " - if a block is needed, administrators should consider using a soft block." to the end of the first paragraph. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 18:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Assume good faith

I think we should get rid of the line that says:

In the event of vandalism from this address, efforts will be made to contact {{{1}}} to report network abuse.

The whole point behind this template should be assume good faith — specifically here, avoiding guilt by association. Therefore it is inappropriate to shout warnings at people. The template already lists the organisation above, so people dealing with abuse will already know who to report it to.

Bear in mind that this template ought to be usable in cases where there is no abuse associated with a particular shared IP address but it is still useful to note that not all the contributions necessarily come from the same user. The more that the wording assumes likely abuse, the less useful the template becomes for that purpose.

Thanks. — Alan^✉ 14:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Speaking as a person at times dealing with abuse, it's a useful line, both as a warning to users, and as a hint to people dealing with abuse that it should be done. Note that IP addresses will rarely check their own talk page just for fun it's mainly to respond to messages they've gotten. Unmodified talk pages are seen more often by people who want to talk to the IP user. Taking the liberty of removing {{editprotected}}. If you still don't agree, put it back, and a different admin will respond. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with AnonEMouse. Otherwise a Shared IPs becomes an open chequebook for immature vandals who think they can keep on getting away with it. As long as the notice doesn't directly accuse the editor of being a vandal, it's not a breach of assuming good faith in my honest opinion. -- Netsnipe ► 04:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prefered method of usage

Is subst'ing this template preferred or only optional? If its preferred I could go through with AWB and subst them all. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 04:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

No. Do not subst: this template. It makes changes in policy or rewording this template very difficult. -- Netsnipe ► 05:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

What other templates does this apply to? For example, {{SharedIPEDU}} ? --Geniac 18:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested addition: address|phone|e-mail

I think it would be helpful for editors if the template provided for not only the name of the owner of the IP, but address, phone and e-mail contact address (for abuse). When anonymous users contemplate vandalizing, they will see that they are not so anonymous, being only one step away from being contacted personally. In some cases, this may be more effective than blocking. I can add all that info in now, but if it is part of the template, other editors will be prompted to fill in anything missing. Besides, there might be some useful text that could be added to clarify things. For example, "Serious vandalism or violation of Wikipedia policy will be reported to the following e-mail address." Any thoughts? Cbdorsett 16:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you suggesting putting the contact details of the internet service provider or the individual? If you mean the ISP, then that information isn't hard to find, and I doubt anyone would be impressed that we'd managed to track it down. If you mean the individual user then I don't think that's possible. From an IP address it's possible to find out the name of the internet service provider easily enough, but to then find out the name/address/phone/email of the individual user of that IP address isn't possible without the co-operation of the ISP. In Britain it would be illegal for the ISP to co-operate in that way except under certain circumstances involving law enforcement, and I suspect it's similar elsewhere in the world. Anyway, the whole point of this template is that it's applied to shared IPs: addresses used by several different people. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 22:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

That info for the ISP is already available via the WHOIS link at the bottom of IP-based users' talk pages (for instance at the bottom of User talk:127.0.0.2) courtesy of the nice folks at DNSStuff. While the addition of that info for the ISPs directly on those pages would probably increase the fear factor for our newbie IP vandals, unless we somehow masked the email addresses, I would imagine some ISPs would be up in arms about revealing their email addresses. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 04:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I also agree that this would be of little benefit each time an editor visits an IP user talk page. However while we're on the topic of WhoIS, could there be an IP physical location variable included in the template. I used to use VandalIP template and put the WhoIS city in brackets next to the provider. It is a way of showing we know who vandals connect through and (usually) what city or country they are in. A reasonable deterrent for vandals without biting the newbies. --Bren ^talk 01:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge from VandalIP

I noticed all the VandalIP tags have now been merged here to SharedIP. I kinda liked the VandalIP template as it was only 2 paragraphs and to the point, without going into the technical stuff, so would fit on the top of an IP usertalk page without taking up too much space.^[2] I think for the average new user, the XFF, admin blocking, and IT guy paragraphs might be too overwhelming. Would others agree to make this template collapsible, say after the first 2 paras, and expand the rest only if a More button is clicked?

Also, on a minor note, VandalIP and ISP etc templates use the light blue background template. Whilst I don't know the official boilerplate policy for things like this, users with SharedIP have done nothing wrong on Wikipedia, so can this template change from orange to light blue? Thanks --Bren ^talk 02:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry you didn't catch the merge debate, but as the date on the diff you posted shows, that template's been longer than two lines for a while now.

I don't think the idea of making this template collapsible would be a good idea. All of the information (with the exception of one line to admins regarding blocking) is intended for the people editing from the IP. Hiding that information will just make it harder for them to use it. —Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 02:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The diff was from last October. There have been no updates to the template till end of May, when the merger and XFF groups made changes. Even then it was still 2 paras when it merged.

I just feel that SharedIP is overly long and does not assume good faith of the user as well as (I know the name is ironic) VandalIP. If a collapsible secion is not appropriate I'd love to hear some other ideas. Thanks. --Bren ^talk 15:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see it as assuming good or bad faith either way; it gives some pretty neutral information. This is an IP tag, not a welcome template. The only time a casual/new user is going to see it is if someone posts a message/warning to their IP's talk page. This tag explains why it might be the case that someone's getting messages/blocks caused by others' behavior and what they can do about it.

On the subject of welcome templates, I always post a welcome template such as {{Welcome-anon-vandal}} to IP pages (see User talk:151.199.194.147 for an example). I think more people should do this and also conform to the layout at WP:UW too.—Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 17:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Attention?

Why is "attention" in bold red print? It might look better in smaller print. 68.49.208.76 04:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wording and over-asumption of good faith

Why can't this template simply say:

"This IP is shared by many people/a company/a school and already has a history of nonconstructive edits to the Wikipedia project. Registration of a user name is required to edit from this IP address."

And then simply block non-logged in edits from the IP? Instead we allow it to persist on the hopes that more good edits will come from it than bad ones, yet IPs like this have a dark history of being little more than extra work for other editors. But we can't block it cause that would keep "potentially" good editors out. Does anyone else think smiling politely at the burglars will make them leave our stuff in the house? Or do you feel that keeping the window open is just letting more bugs in? --AeronPrometheus (talk) 10:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] External link

The hostname WHOIS EL appears to now require a subscription. I didn't want to fix it in case there is a guideline as to what service to use, but it will need switched. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)