[jhugo]

> However, claiming that "basically all" IPs are multiplexed is definitely wrong. A home or small office broadband line typically gets a dynamic-but-ephemerally-unique IP, same as it always did.

IPs assigned to homes and small offices are still multiplexed. It's just a case of magnitude. (In other words, it's rare for a home or small office to contain just a single person.)

The policy as stated makes no sense, if they intend for it to be something like "more than 5 people per IP" they should just say so.

> The effect of IPv6 on this isn't totally clear to me yet. If anything, as IPv6 deployment among ISPs increases, the trend seems to be for less multiplexing and not more.

FWIW, every ISP I've used in the last ~10 years has delegated me an IPv6 prefix, resulting in each device in the network getting a unique IPv6 address. I've never seen any kind of NAT used in the wild for residential IPv6.

[gnfargbl]

You're absolutely correct. But: Wikipedia aren't trying to ban all multiplexed IPs. Instead, they're seeking to ban the IPs that bad actors disproportionately use -- and those are the heavily multiplexed ones.

It's kind of the internet equivalent of keeping drug dealers out of your club by banning anyone who lives in a poor area. A lazy (and likely discriminatory) policy, but a simple one, and effective.