Template talk:Static IP

Template-protected edit request on 2 December 2014
Please replace this template with the sandbox version for HTML5 compliance. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 21:00, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Done, good use of ComparePages too. — xaosflux  Talk 21:11, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 7 June 2015
Please add the missing period at the end of the following sentence:

"However, this IP address may represent more than one user, accessing the Internet via several personal computers or devices"

Thanks.

– Wdchk (talk) 12:15, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- John of Reading (talk) 12:47, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 16 June 2015
WikiProject on XFFs is now a soft-redirect to XFF project, so having sentences linking to both are redundant. Please remove "Alternatively, you can list this IP address at Wikipedia:WikiProject on XFFs". Thanks. Kharkiv07 ( T ) 23:46, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 01:06, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 4 October 2016
Please replace all instances of  with   (eg.   becomes  ). This is due to the original tool being abandoned and no longer working - I have made a copy of the code (GitHub) and will continue to maintain it on toollabs. A discussion was opened on WP:VPT (but has so far not had any comments).

-- samtar talk or stalk 14:02, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Example of completed template modifications -- samtar talk or stalk 14:04, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 14:37, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 16 November 2016
Could someone please remove, as it does not make sense for static IPs. Also,  should be wrapped in, as it only applies to admins P p p er y 20:46, 16 November 2016 (UTC)


 * ✅ — MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 00:17, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe I'm being overly cautious, but I was having doubts about whether a TPER itself was enough to make that kind of text removal. (I have no issues with the CSS class addition) I was thinking it might have needed checkuser or functionary awareness given the topic here. The current wording in the template just above states this IP address may represent more than one user, accessing the Internet via several personal computers or devices, and per WP:Blocking IP addresses, even static IP addresses are periodically re-assigned or have different users, so I was thinking that autoblocks could possibly be relevant to static IPs. I don't mind letting this stand, but just an FYI, I had some concerns. — Andy W. ( talk ) 00:33, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I've restored it per your concerns. — MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 00:36, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Template Protected Edit Request on 1 March 2019
The WHOIS links for the template now result in 404's. Could someone switch the URL to /whois/gateway.py?lookup=true&ip=(insert IP here) Kb03 (talk) 16:33, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done — CYBERPOWER  ( Chat ) 19:02, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 12 April 2019
Please replace  with , so that "Create an account" links to the page to create an account.

Please also change  to   for the same reason (registering an account is the same as creating one).

Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 22:03, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Cabayi (talk) 07:21, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Wording is offensive and harassing
The wording of this template includes "In response to vandalism from this IP address, abuse reports may be sent to its network administrator for investigation."

It is an implicit accusation of vandalism and moreover, I have had it placed many times by two different people, who then take exception to me removing it and replace it with aggression eg "I can keep this up forever." Said user accused me of editing rail articles from Rochester, which I never have. Interestingly, they said "the static IP template is not a shaming device and you need not feel attacked by it'. The other user is a self professed stalker of wikipedia vandals. Well, fair enough, if someone thinks I am vandalizing then post the details and let's deal with it. But placing the template as currently worded is just plain passive aggressive and a device for stalkers to harass without engaging in the substance of an allegation towards resolving anything.

Well, if the offensive words I have identified are removed from the template, then I would not find it a shaming device and I would be quite accepting of the template being used on my talk page. But until then, it is just plain wrong. 78.33.185.122 (talk) 19:54, 28 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I support the removal of this. It's far too aggressive for this to be placed on the talk page of an IP who isn't vandalizing, people know fully well that they may be blocked from editing. – Thjarkur (talk) 19:29, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: the wording of this template has come about over years of discussion and improvement. They are not aimed at any person or editor, only to an "IP address". There is no way Wikipedia can please everyone, nor is there any way Wikipedia can avoid the appearance of shaming or even attacking in the eyes of some editors. Apologies if the wording of this template is unconscionable to you; however, in the vast majority of instances the wording is acceptable. If it doesn't apply to you, then best practice would be to ignore it. If it were me, I would register and continue editing and improving the project and the encyclopedia. You might even come to realize how important templates like this really are! Best of everything to you and yours!  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 19:39, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Years of discussion and improvement has left a weapon for harassment. Fair enough if you don't want to rake over that, but your apologies for the wording don't cut it. I am not challenging the existence or use of templatesin general and it is disingenuous of you to suggest that I am. I am actually complaining about the wording within the template and making a suggestion to make it more acceptable. Alternatively, you might consider forking the template to one for static IP's in general and another for accusations of vandalism. As it is, I consider that the use of the template as is is offensive when there is no evidence of vandalism. 78.33.185.122 (talk) 20:30, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * That dog won't hunt, Mr. Ip. This template has been used time and time again without any such hassle. Until now, it seems. A look at your talk page history makes your words... unconvincing. Would you be a good editor? Maybe, but could you learn to play well with others?  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 21:10, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

My page is as it is because I have had aggressive people place and replace the template. It is not an issue of being a good editor or not. It is a matter of being accused falsely of vandalism. No one has produced evidence, but they seem fine to accuse me of editing rail articles about Rochester and placing an offensive accusation. Are you a good editor? 78.33.185.122 (talk) 22:01, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The text in this template is not an accusation of vandalism, it is just a template that goes at the top of IP pages to tell people they aren't logged in and can create an account, and that in the case there were a lot of vandalism coming from this IP that it would be possible to contact a network administrator. But I think it is too aggresively worded even though it's not an accusation. – Thjarkur (talk) 22:34, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Þjarkur, If it actually was what you said, I would have no problem with it. But it starts 'in response to vandalism from this IP address ... ' which I can only read as being intended as a factual statement ie an accusation. There is no 'If' or any other word or indication that there is no accusation nor that it is intended as part of an 'If ... then ...' construct. 78.33.185.122 (talk) 23:34, 11 June 2020 (UTC)


 * So, you think you've been falsely accused. Does that include the ' an editor warned you of doing? Right from the getgo? I fought vandalism on this encyclopedia for more than a year before I registered back in 2009. And I can tell that this is a Shakespearian case of "protesting too much". Open this again and prove my point, won't you? This is a clear case of Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. How would you word it so that in your eyes it would not read as an accusation of vandalism and still get the idea across that vandalism won't be tolerated?  P.I. Ellsworth '   ed.  put'r there 22:47, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

As you are getting personal over talk pages, whose talk page says this: "Editing Wikipedia is voluntary, so let it always be lots of fun!"?. An ideal for you to facilitate for others.

Yes, I did get involved in an edit war, but stopped when the rules were pointed out. And as you should know, an edit war is not vandalism. There have been no complaints in 6 months, there is nothing on going and it really is time for you to let it go, especially as you were never involved.

As for how would I word it, now you are moving into the realm of being constructive. I would suggest "If vandalism is noted from this IP address, abuse reports may be sent to its network administrator for investigation." I have looked at the 'edit request' page and I don't think the change is genuinely controversial, it is just about making Wikipedia that little bit less unfriendly, so I set the flag accordingly. 78.33.185.122 (talk) 23:34, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I would love to "let it go", but I can't. Guess I'm having too much fun with template edit requests lately. So you would change:

 from this IP address, abuse reports may be sent to its network administrator for investigation.
 * to:

 from this IP address, abuse reports may be sent to its network administrator for investigation.
 * and you would leave the rest of the sentence as it is. How does your suggestion change the accusatory nature of the phrase? I will say that your suggested words do sound stronger and better. But less accusatory? I don't know.  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 23:52, 11 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Okay, let's do this... give it a little time and see if other editors weigh in. If they do, we'll go with the consensus, and if they don't, we'll change it and see if it flies, if that's okay with you and Thjarkur. As for me, I support your suggested change.  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 02:26, 12 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I think that what I have proposed maintains the hostility of the original [and thus might not get Þjarkur's agreement], but my mission is not to change the hostility of Wikipedia. [The perceived hostility is the main reason I will not get a user ID here]. Recasting the sentence to include 'If' makes it clear that there is no actual accusation of vandalism, only suspicion that vandalism might happen. I can live with that. Without the 'If', it is very much implied that there has been vandalism in the past or near past. The current sentence is very much predicated on vandalism, in the same way that my earlier statement "my mission is not to change the hostility of Wikipedia" is predicated on Wikipedia being hostile. If you railed at that, perhaps you begin to get my point. 78.33.185.122 (talk) 08:25, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * And ✅.  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 20:35, 15 June 2020 (UTC)