Wikipedia talk:Contact school systems responsible for mass vandalism

I'm not sure that the exception for elementary schools should exist. The kids themselves may not understand the situation, but the teachers who should be supervising them do. I also know that many older kids have access to elementary school computers (teachers' kids who are there after school, for example). Joyous 05:07, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree; and furthermore, if kindergarteners can't handle the criticism, they probably can't make proper edits either. I like this proposal. --Golbez 05:48, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)


 * I like this proposal. I think some schools have been contacted regarding vandalism from their students. I also think that the exception for elementary schools is not really needed. I don't think many kindergartners are vandalizing Wikipedia, and fourth and fifth graders are surely mature enough to understand that vandalizing is wrong. Maybe we should start informing universities who's students spew out vandalism as well. Take a look for instance at User_talk:131.111.8.101. What type of people are they educating at Cambridge University these days? Sjakkalle (Check!)  10:01, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I'm all for implementing this. But I'm worried how it will affect registered users with good-standing at the same institution. That and I failed to get a response from the Camebridge University help desk... - Mgm|(talk) 11:28, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

Concur on this, and that elementary schools should not be exempt. I suspect that if we notify an elementary school, their handling of the student will be more appropriate than something that would send them home crying non-stop. --Habap 18:42, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Here's a start to solving the first problem you've got MacGyver... combining the edit histories of vandalized articles with the time that a user first gets onto a computer to when they get off the computer. Both of these will help narrow down both the users who could possibly be responsible for the vandalism and the location of the computer which was used to vandalize Wikipedia.  For example, the time shown by the edit history of an article in regard to when the article was vandalized could end corresponding to a time when the only possible place a computer could be accessed by a student would be the dormitories, as all other possible places to access computers (library, computer center, etc.) are closed to students. Likewise, comparing the time at which vandalism was committed with the time period that a student had access to a computer could rule out certain students. For example, if the vandalism to an article first occurred at 2 P.M and a particular student stopped using the computer at 1:30, they could possibly be ruled out. Combining that information with the class schedules of students and their attendence could narrow it down even further. --Chanting Fox 18:47, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I like this proposal, although like the others I don't feel that the exception for kindergarten is necessary, or particularly workable (most grade schools go from kindergarten up to third or fourth grade and have shared computer labs, for example in the school library). However, we do need to come up with some sort of form letter to send to vandalism-prone schools. Emails should include a list of URLs to diffs showing vandalism along with the time each incident occurred, in hopes that it can be matched to a specific user, or at least to a specific class using the lab at the time (probably a vain hope, but a long list of offenses might make administrators take the complaint more seriously). The possibility of banning the entire school from using the encyclopedia if vandalism continues unabated might be mentioned. &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 18:59, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've removed the special exception for elementary schools due to your comments about it being unneccessary. Thank you all for your input up to this point. --Chanting Fox 19:03, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

block an IPN without blocking registered users from that same IPN
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it possible to block an IPN without blocking registered users from that same IPN? This way good anonymous editors aren't blocked because of vandals sharing their IPN, they're only forced to register. This way no group of users consisting of good and bad ones both has to be treated as a unit. --MarSch 18:09, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that's probably not a possibility from this end MarSch, if at all. The problem is that the IP in question is registered to the school system, and is used by a network of computers rather than a single computer. Furthermore, this proposal is meant to deal with cases in which blocks have been implemented numerous times with little to no effect being shown after the blocks have been lifted. This is a "last resort" measure, meant to deal with cases where the vandalism is long-term and major. I outlined this myself, stating that if implemented, this policy would not be used to deal with every single case of vandalism from such IPs. That would be a waste of time for everyone, not to mention far too harsh a measure. In other words, somebody who just has a "feeling crazy" day and decides it woud be fun to make silly changes to articles on Wikipedia and never does it again will never be affected by the proposed policy. --Chanting Fox 18:27, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Contacting the school system
I read that ''the school system will be contacted in regard to the vandalism being committed by that IP. Any infraction after that results in an immediate contacting of the school system. . . .'' If I were a school system so contacted (and not somebody moderately versed in WP), I'd probably think "Tough luck, and really no surprise as long as (a) you let anybody change virtually anything and (b) there are millions of bumptious schoolkids with access to the web." And I'd reply "I am very sorry to hear of this, but, as we cannot watch everybody's use of the web, there is nothing we can do about it." School IP people could stick up notices asking the kids not to dick around with WP, but I don't suppose such notices would do much to deter the miscreants, while they might even give new ideas to the miscreants' slower classmates.


 * Many schools try to tech their students good "netiquette". I doubt many schools completely ignore what their students are doing with the computers, since ther are a lot of illegal things they can do online. -- Apoc2400 21:17, 2005 Jul 4 (UTC)

How might the school be contacted to maximize the likelihood of amelioration? If a good effect is unlikely, wouldn't contacting the school just be a waste of time for all concerned? -- Hoary 07:28, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)


 * Some of the vandalism consists of inserting colorful four-letter words throughout articles, and I think several teachers and headmasters are quite strict with students who do so, especially if they start posting this stuff up on the internet. I remember one case at school (8th grade) when someone took a break to go to the toilet, leaving the message "F*** you, I am using this computer" (with the letters "uck" replacing "***") on the screen. The computer teacher was furious, and the incident resulted in a week's worth of detention, and that is in a liberal country like Norway. Sjakkalle (Check!)  10:02, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * That's interesting. I also find it curiously depressing. To be told "fuck you" (or the Norwegian equivalent thereof) isn't pleasant, but it's a humdrum remark, and one with a curious lack of denotative meaning; I'd much rather be told this than, say, to be physically attacked. If I had a kid in this Norwegian school, I'd much rather his -- yes, I think his rather than her -- right to play with WP were removed than for him to suffer detention. I'm now even less happy about the idea of contacting schools, now that I consider the possibility of such punishments. Couldn't their IP numbers be blocked, without snitching to the school? -- Hoary 10:28, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)
 * Well, we might say that the student in question was a notorious troublemaker. I agree that placing him in detention for a week was very strict, but it's a bit like giving longer blocks here for persistent vandals. Sjakkalle (Check!)  10:34, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, and this policy isn't for cases of "fooling around," but rather long-term and specific vandalism. As I have stated, this is meant to be a "last resort" option. It's not meant to be invoked against every single case of vandalism. That would be a waste of time and energy on everybody's part.

"Historical"
This proposal just got relabeled "historical" because "debate died down". However, it looked like this had some support. I certainly support it. &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 00:39, 14 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I too would support this proposal. It's possible that some schools may not be able to identify the culprits, but a) some might, and b) they're more likely to be able to than Wikipedia. It seems the logical step in cases of persistent vandalism, after Wikipedia has exhausted its other options.
 * The issue of what to do with school IPs is a tricky one, as you run the risk of punishing many because of the actions of a few. However, in the worst cases, the number of bad edits vastly outweigh the good edits, even in cases where talk pages have been updated to ask that other students of the school repair any vandalism. In such cases, I can't see any reason why the school shouldn't be contacted. KeithD 10:43, 19 July 2005 (UTC)