Used to mark pages of anonymous editors who have been repeatedly blocked for vandalism.

Personally, I preferred the yellow, stood out more. My eyes are in their mid-30's and didn't mind. I dont' really care about the vandal's eyes.  :) Wikibofh_(talk) 17:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, me too -- and my eyes are in their 50s. It's supposed to be uggily. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not supposed to be obnoxious. We got some template guidelines for talkpages which we should stick to.SoothingR 23:32, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer the the yellow - it carries more content, shall we say. But what I came here for was to suggest adding something the following

• Note: This a shared IP Address. <strong>Please use only short blocks</strong> to limit collateral damage.<br>

An example may be seen at [1]. Regards, Ben Aveling 11:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not all repeat vandals are shared-IP's, by any means. And of those that are, not infrequently the entire list of "contributions" is vandalism, whether it's just a single user at that shared address (the others not caring to do Wikipedia), or whether, as in the case of a number of schools, it's all a pile of young children each doing their own vandalism. Bill 13:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would also oppose the automatic inclusion of the shared IP comment. Some vandal accounts are shared, some are not. Shared IPs should be noted separately using the {{sharedIP}} template. Rossami (talk) 14:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that sharedIP ought to be enough to warn admins off from applying long blocks, but at leasts in the case of 202.6.138.33, it isn't. Otherwise, point taken. What about "If this IP Address is shared, ..." Regards, Ben Aveling 15:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So what if the IP is shared? Nothing prevents an individual user, though using the computer at some school, from registering. Serious users already very much tend to register: ignoring the shared-IP and blocking a whole school for a month, or even AOL, would be a powerful inducement for serious editors to register: what harm is there in that? (As for whether admins pay attention to things, by and large they don't; the whole question of vandalism has got so out of hand that in the case at least of the 210 articles I follow, the great majority of edits are vandalism and reverts. The solution is to require registration with traceable e‑mail. Anyone who thinks this would kill Wikipedia may note that registration has been required now for several months for the writing of new articles, and it hasn't done the least damage to anything.)Bill 16:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Registration alone does not solve all evils. Remember that an IP block also blocks all signed-in users who are connecting from that IP address. Ben is correct that long blocks should be used very sparingly against IPs. Rossami (talk) 16:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, did you read what I wrote? Why would I have written it if I didn't know that blocking the IP blocks everybody? The question really is not about the wording of a template that the overwhelming majority of people won't read, but about preventing vandalism. In my view, precisely, it is not correct that "long blocks should be used sparingly": since so far there has been no solution to the vandalism problem, to get to one, we need to start thinking outside the mindless box that has been created for us. Bill 16:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a push for a form of blocking that locks out anons and new user registration while still allowing registered users to edit which might one day help solve this problem. See http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3706 and http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=550

550 proposes a flag on IP blocks to say if they block everything, block anon editing, or block anon editing and account creation. 3706 is different, but not all that different. It proposes a flag on accounts to allow them to edit through IP blocks. More discussion may be found at Wikipedia:Blocking policy proposal.

If either bug is ever implemented, it will help. But for the moment, shared IPs are a problem we have to live with. Regards, Ben Aveling 16:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bill, I'm sure that you would never put a long block on a shared IP. But the fact is, people do it. If we do not give them a gentle reminder in this template, what do you suggest we do? Or are you in favour of long blocks on shared IPs? Regards, Ben Aveling 16:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC) PS. You make a good point that {{SharedIP}} should also carry a similar warning. I'll follow up on it, but I don't think that's sufficient, both because that template won't always be present, and because it is this template that is actively encouraging and authorising the use of blocks.[reply]

Ben, actually, I would — as above. Not to worry, I'm not an admin, and despite flattering queries, am not running for admin, either. Absolutely nothing prevents the serious editor from registering, and thus detaching themselves from AOL as it were. Yes, I'd block all of AOL if the vandalism got bad enough. In fact, of course, with these rotating IP's, that's not what would happen: one of the rotating IP's would be blocked, and the same proportion of vandals would get thru on the others, with afew people occasionally being mystified that they couldn't edit.... Short of requiring traceable registration for editing (just as on the overwhelming majority of bulletin boards) there is no solution to the vandalism. I would encourage serious editors to join me in refusing by and large to revert vandalism — to go on strike — If enough of us did that, the articles would quickly liquefy, and the people who really run this show (i.e., Jimbo) would change the rules. Bill 17:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by 'detaching themselves from AOL'? Do you mean changing ISPs? Regards, Ben Aveling 16:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just wish they made users sign up before editing. 90% of anonymous edits has to be vandalism. It's not so muc that it'll stop vandalism, it's just another hoop to jump through. And you need to insert a strong, highlighted message referring to collateral damage. I've been hit around five times by it thanks to vandals and it's no help. michael ^talk 23:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]