User:Equazcion/sandbox2/Archive undefined

6666666666

 * Clarification for others: "K-12" refers to primary and secondary schools in several countries (U.S., Australia, etc.). Other countries organize their grades and student ages differently; our "Educational stage" article lists these arrangements by country. Some countries have post-secondary but pre-university schools for students in age ranges such as 16-18 or 18-19; most, but not all, of those also produce mostly vandalism.


 * My general sense is that the vandalism we get from anonymous editors using primary and secondary school IPs far outweighs the positive contributions but I haven't looked at every IP.


 * As you can see above, I'm cautious about getting "out in front" of the community's consensus on anonymous editing and blocking. As an administrator, I have a duty to follow the community's consensus, even if I don't always agree with it -- unless I have an obvious, compelling reason to do otherwise. (Those occasions are rare).


 * I personally like your idea about pre-emptively soft-blocking K-12 IPs but is the community ready for it? I suspect it's not (yet); restricting anonymous editing is anathema to many in our community.


 * You might get stronger support for now behind a rule imposing long (≥1 year) soft-blocks on "K-12ish" schools exceeding some threshold number of warnings and/or blocks with few positive contributions. These are school systems that with a tangible track record of trouble.


 * I wish you'd gotten more responses (pro or con); you've flagged an important problem. Take a look at Centralized discussion; you may want to get a discussion started elsewhere with more visibility.


 * Thanks for raising this issue. -- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 23:49, 14 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Personally, I don't see a reason to treat Schools any differently from other IPs that cause disruption. Once an IP has gotten blocked the first time, the resumption of disruption from that IP should generally be dealt with by escalating blocks. While I prefer to see 4 warnings before each block, when someone makes a report, the IP has 3 previous blocks for general vandalism, and it is clear they are back at it, there really isn't a point to delaying the next block. That said, there are a vast number of IPs out there, and a dynamic IP vandal is unlikely to stay on the same IP long enough to get the long blocks that a static school IP ends up with. The school IP ends up with the long block not because we have anything against schools, but because we can identify it as a persistent source of vandalism. I would oppose blocks merely because we can trace the IP to a school, but identifying as a school to understand and stop a pattern of vandalism is fine. Monty  845  05:14, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Preemptively blocking all school IPs is harebrained proposal. Abuse response is moribund because it was mainly the work of one editor, who is now vanished/retired. My impression is that most reports were ignored by the ISPs anyway. Someone not using his real name (talk) 20:21, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose blocking presumed-school (i.e. every teacher and every student therein) without 1) blatant *constant* vandalism that is 2) demonstrably *more* troubles being generated than the bots and editors of wikipedia are able to handle in that particular 30-minute timespan. Just because it is N per day, or X good for every Y bad, is of no relevance.  If there is even one good edit coming out of the school a month, *and* our vandalism-mitigation infrastructure can handle the current rate of bad stuff coming from that same school, I'd rather we not block it.  That said, it probably makes sense for wikipedia admins to keep a spreadsheet of potential hotspot IP addresses -- not specifically schools, but just IPs that have at one time or another had been a significant source (purposely fuzzy) of non-constructive edits.  This would encompass spam-servers, vandal-prone schools, and political campaign-staff headquarters-facilities, all in one fell swoop.  Bots could auto-update the list, methinks, including